3 ms·
> This company pretends it has the moral high ground, but like most of corporate America, they always have an eye on Chinese profits. To be fair, it's not fair
by traceroute66 4y ago
> This company pretends it has the moral high ground, but like most of corporate America, they always have an eye on Chinese profits.
To be fair, it's not fair to use this as an occasion for Apple bashing or America bashing.
The whole Taiwan thing goes much deeper. For example, if you look at ISO3166, the country code standard.
If you look up Taiwan in ISO3166[1], you will see it listed as "Taiwan (Province of China)".
So, if a supposedly neutral international body sees it fit to maintain the link, then what hope have you got for individual countries or their companies ?
N.B. The UN does the same [2]
[1]https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:TW https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:TW
[2]https://service.unece.org/trade/locode/tw.htm https://service.unece.org/trade/locode/tw.htm
- yunohn 4y agoWell yes, like all the other “neutral” international bodies, the ISO is dictated by its more powerful members. Taiwan is not a member, and been intentionally and continuously excluded. Source: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3812381 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3812381
- PuddleOfSausage 4y agoJust a note, the ISO standard and the United Nations are intrinsically linked. A country can only enter ISO 3166-1 if it appears in the United Nations Terminology Bulletin 'Country Names'. And I suppose one could argue the UN is not neutral.
- sam_dal 4y agoApparently it's Kissinger's fault (with the secret treaty with China). From then on UN stopped recognizing Taiwan and gave the seat to China. See this video at 16min mark [1] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5POKVD8XMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5POKVD8XMg).
- blfr 4y agoApparently, People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) are in agreement that there's only one China. They differ on which government is legitimate.
- wongarsu 4y agoIt's worth noting that in the ROC (Taiwan) that position is losing popularity, and since about 2007 they seem to be moving towards becoming an independent nation that claims only the island of Taiwan. It's a politically difficult topic however, which is why no name change happened so far.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- CogitoCogito 4y ago> So, if a supposedly neutral international body sees it fit to maintain the link, then what hope have you got for individual countries or their companies ? The body was most certainly not neutral.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y agoNeutrality in politics doesn't refer to a Platonic ideal where the existence of a conflict doesn't affect you in any way. Neutrality is a pragmatic message: "I understand you two have a conflict, I'm not going to take it upon myself to solve it, but I'd like to operate here regardless". One option is of course to say that nobody should be neutral in the conflict between China and Taiwan, but the obvious objection is that Taiwan does not want this. Taiwan's economic links with the mainland are enormous and it's absolutely routine for Taiwanese businesses to export to China or do business in China under Chinese regulations. (For example, you may be familiar with Foxconn, a Taiwanese company with over a million Chinese employees.)
- CogitoCogito 4y agoI don't know why you're over-complicating this. The body that decided on that terminology didn't even invite Taiwan to participate. The terminology was chosen at the behest of China. That body was obviously not neutral.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y agoIt just doesn't seem useful to adopt a concept of "neutrality" so strong that no international organization meets it.
- CogitoCogito 4y agoOnce again you're over-complicated this. The organization could have invited Taiwan to participate and asked them what they'd like to be called. That would certainly satisfy those questioning the organization's neutrality.