Idiotic comments about situation in Tibet on SMH
I found the following letter on Today's Sydney Morning Herald, after finished reading it, i would like to say to SMH that although you can publish reader's letters and we can assume that the standard is not as high as the inhouse editors, it is still unacceptable to publish such an idoitic comment.
* M, c& k) _5 A5 V5 y% A4 _
2 p0 d/ _6 C5 Z: o6 H' o/ e0 }0 N9 A7 e" M# F/ Y& {% x6 }
Many would prefer China to leave Tibet, but, with the tragedy of East Timor in mind, one must seriously examine the strategic and security implications of a Tibet without Chinese presence before advocating such an event. In particular, consideration must be given to filling the power vacuum that China would leave behind.
* F- ?& C K: B' FTibet is a vast, thinly populated and poor territory. It does not have a trained local security service to assume control from the Chinese military. In any power vacuum, there is a high risk of a breakdown of law and order as happened in East Timor. No doubt, in the interim, foreign personnel would be required to maintain security. However, few countries have the resources to police this vast territory, except perhaps the United States. The Americans would like to be able to use parts of Tibet that border central Asia for strategic purposes, as they did in Kyrgyzstan. It would also please many people in the US and elsewhere who are keen to "contain" China. Perhaps this explains why China is so reluctant to let go of Tibet.
