It is quite interesting to consider the differences between these two countries (or rather their regimes) as highlighted by the recent catastrophes. In the normal course of events, minus cyclones and earthquakes, they tend to get lumped together as regimes that abuse human rights. One could argue, however, that when disaster happens Burma has more in common with the United States than it does with China. I'm thinking, of course, about Katrina and the response that was so delayed - not to mention the failure to invest in the maintenance of levees that could have averted most of the worst effects - as well as the bland refusal of either government to really recognize the extent of human loss at the time. By contrast, the Chinese had at least 50,000 troops in the disaster area by the next day and the scale of the rescue effort increased from there.

The criminality of the Burmese regime is accentuated by the fact that the cyclone wasn't even a Category 5. It was a 4 when it initially hit the Irrawaddy delta coast and it was a 2 by the time it reached Rangoon. Yet it killed about 100,000 people. I was in Vietnam a couple of years ago when they had the worst typhoon (cyclone) in a decade. It was a 4 or 5. The Army rushed to the affected areas to build defences before it hit. A handful of people died. Nobody was left to fend for themselves in the aftermath.

Even if you think the Vietnamese Communists have a bad record on human rights, you can hardly fault them for valuing the lives of ordinary people when disaster strikes. The Vietnamese armed forces do not exist primarily for regime maintenance, as in Burma, but for national defence. I think the situation in China is similar to that in Vietnam. Although the latter has never had anything resembling the Tien An Men violence of 1989, there is a similarity in that the armed forces do not threaten ordinary people, while they do step in to provide support in times of real danger. In Burma, by contrast, the armed forces are a constant threat.