It is of great tragedy that two disasters, both ranking over 10,000 in mortalities, have occurred. Aside from the destruction of property and loss of lives, it is a rough ride for international support. That is, Burma (sorry, the habit stays) and China are coping with a typhoon and earthquake respectively, but economic tensions, built-in illusions and the disparity of wealth across the globe condemn one country, and aid the other. In shorter terms, we say, “We can only help one of you.”

The Burmese tragedy happened less than a week ago. Cyclone Naris struck the temperate country, and, depending on the source, thousands to hundreds of thousands of civilians are currently wading in muck and filth, starving and cold. Adding insult to injury, the Burmese government moved at an extremely slow pace, churning through dirty water slowly to assist one out every ten homeless persons. To foreign aid it said, “We do it our way. Give us the food, and our officials will distribute it.” The U.N. suspiciously characterizes the Burmese government as corrupt, and believes without foreign oversight all altruistic relief will be squandered by cigar-smoking generals and wealthy aristocrats.

China’s plight is a bit mellower. A 7.9 earthquake shook the country- and the world-, toppling buildings, hospitals, nuclear plants, and schools, creating a field day for journalists capitalizing on children buried in rubble. From what I have read China’s tragedy is nothing to mourn about; it appears as “just desserts.” Scared of its rising economic growth and bashful regard for environmental trends, recent news articles popularized China as unable to construct safe buildings, with allusions to the Three Gorges Dam.

China is not receiving much help, but Burma is all too eager to absorb benevolence.

The countries are classified as developed and underdeveloped. China’s earthquake rattled one of the poorer districts of the Republic. Burma’s bureaucracy may hamper attempts to assist the country. But officials now call China “Well-equipped”, enough so to wipe up after itself. So far the country has only asked for voluntarily aid, and the U.N. deems China as stable. Burma is the troubled, traumatized neighbor. Already with a government in shambles, and judging from current response teams, reconstruction will be hard, slow, and harrying.

I recently talked to a few peers at my school, asking whether China or Burma should receive aid. Most said Myanmar. When asked why, they dribbled over poverty and a failure to completely industrialize. China’s already well off, so let us focus on Burma. We cried Burma! Burma!, and the donation boxes still float around in classrooms. Nothing for China.

A disaster is always a blow to the stomach for a country. Dishing out already empty funds knocks the wind out of stomaches while the amount of sent goods rates a country’s charitableness. It is no surprise that the United States is wary over the dispensation of money. But China sent $5 million worth of tents, food, and disaster relief materials in the wake of Katrina. Burma sent nothing.

From a humanitarian viewpoint, Burma needs a major clean up. Looking through the focals of economics, and reason, China may be the better option. With a less corrupt bureaucracy, goods are more likely to fall into the country’s victim’s hands.

You can not fix a country with foreign aid. North Korea, on the verge of starvation, squandered most sent foreign relief. Stories bubble up, telling tales of perpetually hungry children and no sight of foreign relief. Sending aid to Burma may be similar- trivial.

Perhaps I am painting the picture associated with China. Diabolic, dirty, inhuman. China appears as a power-hungry egotist, Burma a muddy derelict smelling of too long in the rain. Too capable, incapable- who are we going to help?