There is no middle ground. Mentioning "Greater China" isn't neutral. It's precisely the idea of considering "Greater China" as neutral that is de facto siding with the PRC.
No, this is Apple being confident that the USA will drop Taiwan and that this and that siding with China is the "responsible" thing to do.
Last October, 17 Office Management Specialists (OMSs) from posts across broader China convened at U.S. Consulate General Shanghai for the third annual Greater China Office Management Specialist Workshop. Participants included OMSs from Embassy Beijing and consulates across mainland China, as well as colleagues from Consulate General Hong Kong and the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Taipei. The workshop’s theme, Reenergizing Your Why, provided participants with a forum to discuss common goals, motivations, challenges and benefits of their career paths.
There are approximately 50 Protestant denominations, including Anglican, Baptist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, the Church of Christ in China, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal, and Seventh-day Adventists. The Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong recognizes the pope and maintains links to the Vatican; the Bishop of Hong Kong and his retired predecessor are the only Catholic cardinals in greater China.
The ROC also believes in one china, including one day resuming sovereignty of the mainland, no? I don't see any obvious indicator of the concept as siding with the PRC.
> The ROC also believes in one china, including one day resuming sovereignty of the mainland, no?
The ROC isn't a one-party state like the PRC and different parties in Taiwan have different positions on that. The KMT and other parties generally aligned with it mostly favor unification under the ROC (or a one-country, two-systems end state), the DPP and parties aligned with it tend to favor both Taiwanese nationalism and independent statehood. The DPP currently holds the Presidency and the KMT has the larges legislative bloc, so...?
I'd rather we drop the pretense or expectations that corporations have anything but one goal. That will help us direct our energy to where it can actually be productive.
If the marketplace demands better corporate stewardship, and people vote with their wallet, and companies decides to change then great, but the corporate ship is only ever getting steered in one direction and it's not for noble reasons.
Because what you consider moral issues are actually just issue prominent in media.
And yes, I want my business to be prudent in earning money. Doing harm to people is not effective or prudent. Getting in political name callings is also not prudent.
