Apparently 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).

Just 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.

Well 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

Apparently, 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.

It'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.

> 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.

Neutrality 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.)

I 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.

It just doesn't seem useful to adopt a concept of "neutrality" so strong that no international organization meets it.

Once 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.

It would satisfy them because they think Taiwan is an independent country, and not satisfy China because they don't agree.

Of course, you and I know that China is wrong and Taiwan really is an independent country! But that doesn't mean it's neutral to say so.

Allowing the PRC to decide what the lands they govern are called and allowing the ROC to decide that the lands they govern are called is _obviously_ more neutral than allowing either the PRC or the ROC to make the decision for both sides. Taking the PRC’s side (as that committee did) or the ROC’s side is basically the definition of “not neutral”.

China does need to be “satisfied” for it to be neutral.