灾难中最惊人的对比
来源：英国《独立报》
面对国内大规模的紧急状况，中国和缅甸两国领导人的反应形成对比。在中国至少造成1.2万人死亡的地震发生后，中国总理温家宝匆匆前往灾区，而且已经派遣军队到那里执行救灾任务。在缅甸，在导致10万人死亡或失踪的飓风发生整整十天后，缅甸军政府的领导人丹瑞（Than Shwe）躲起来了。甚至联合国秘书长潘基文都无法打通他的电话，以表达自己对缅甸迟缓回应的“极度失望”。
在理论上，这两个国家都欢迎外国的物资，但拒绝国际救援专家队伍的帮助。然而，一个遭到责骂，一个得到主权尊重。理由是显而易见的。北京已经紧急派出部队和直升机进入灾区。中国的紧急服务机构派出大推土机和救援队伍，身穿雨衣拿着铁锹的救援人员迅速前行到受灾地区。而在缅甸，在受灾最严重的伊洛瓦底三角洲，民众基本上没有住所和紧急食品救援。由于没有清洁的饮用水，他们面临霍乱，痢疾和其他疾病。少量援助只能通过最原始的手段，用独木舟运送。联合国说已经接触大约27万人，而运去的粮食不足所需粮食的十分之一，稻米的储备“接近用尽”。同时，而获准进入该国的援助中，大部分滞留机场多天。联合国表示，在过去24小时只是略有改善。自然灾害可能变成人祸。
在几个月前镇压亲民主示威时无处不在的缅甸军队却缺席了。缅甸军方领导人索丹（Soe Thein）宣布缅甸感谢美国12日送达的救援物资，但再次表明不需要外国救援工人或后勤专家。因此，很难不赞成布什总统的说法，这个偏执的军事独裁政权“要么孤立，要么无情”。
然而，中国和缅甸灾难中最惊人的类比之处是，仰光军政府的说法跟三十年前的北京所宣布的说法非常相似。但中国自此以后发生了很大的改变，最明显的是中国急速的经济发展让它从发展中国家一跃成为世界新兴的超级大国。
几十年来最惊人的特点之一，就是经济增长以及国内市场的发展程度让中国关注更好地满足全体公民的需要。北京已经意识到，不均衡的发展会造成严重的政治后果。大量民众（特别是在农村地区的民众）被落在后头会造成反叛的村庄，甚至反叛的地区。对全体民众需求的敏感性越来越明显。经济增长带来了民主。中国仍然需要更多的后者。但缅甸两样都需要。（原题：反映政权现实的镜子）
英文原文：Leading article: Mirrors that reflect the reality of regimes
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Contrast the response of two leaders to massive national emergencies within their countries. The day after the Chinese earthquake, in which some 12,000 people at least have perished, the country's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, rushed to the area to which he had already dispatched troops on disaster relief duty. In Burma, 10 full days after the cyclone in which 100,000 are dead or missing – and the UN estimates a staggering 1.5 million people are at risk – the leader of Burma's military government, General Than Shwe, is in hiding. Even the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has been unable to get through to him on the phone to express his "immense frustration" at what he described as Burma's "unacceptably slow" response in which fewer than a third of those at risk have received any assistance at all.
Both countries have, in theory at any rate, welcomed material aid from abroad but declined assistance from teams of international aid experts. Yet one has been showered with opprobrium and the other accorded a sovereign respect. The reason for the divergent response is obvious. Beijing has rushed troops and helicopters into the afflicted province of Sichuan. The Chinese emergency services have moved giant earth movers into the city and team of rescuers – clad in raincoats and carrying shovels – swiftly made their way into the devastated areas. In Burma, by contrast, in the Irrawaddy Delta, the area worst affected by the cyclone, people have been largely left without shelter or emergency food. With little access to clean drinking water, they face cholera, dysentery and other illnesses. Tiny amounts of help are being delivered by the most rudimentary of means, in dugout canoes. The UN says it has reached around 270,000 people, shipping in less than a tenth of the food needed, with rice stocks "close to exhaustion". Meanwhile much of the aid which has been allowed to trickle into the country, in minuscule amounts, has sat at the airport for days. In the past 24 hours there has been, the UN says, only slight improvement. Natural disaster threatens to turn into a human catastrophe.
The Burmese army, which seemed omnipresent when pro-democracy protests needed suppressing only a few months ago, has been notable by its absence. And yet Vice-Admiral Soe Thein, of the country's military leadership, while announcing that the regime was grateful for the aid shipment from the United States which arrived on Monday, has insisted again that there is no need for foreign aid workers or logistical experts. It is not hard, therefore, to concur for once with the verdict of President George Bush that this paranoid military dictatorship is either "isolated or callous".
What is most striking in the parallel between the tragedies in China and Burma, however, is that the things which are being said of the military tyranny in Rangoon are very similar to the verdicts that would have been pronounced three decades ago on Beijing at the end of the regime of Chairman Mao. A lot has changed since then, most notably the mushrooming economic development of China which has leapfrogged it from the status of a developing nation to the world's emerging super-power.
One of the most striking features of those decades has been the extent to which economic growth, and the development of internal markets, has brought China to attend better to the needs of all its citizens. Beijing has realised that serious political consequences follow from development that is not equitably distributed throughout the nation. Revolting villages, and even regions, result from any sense that large groups of people, particularly in rural areas, are being left behind. An increased sensitivity to the needs of all the population is clear. Economic growth brings democracy. China still needs more of the latter. But Burma needs more of both.