"For China, migrant crisis is someone else's fault, and responsibility," was the headline of a New York Times article on Wednesday. The article criticizes China for being "reluctant to get involved in efforts to solve humanitarian crises."

The author slyly shifted people's attention, especially resentment, from the US to China. Since the breakout of the migrant crisis, most US media have deliberately downplayed Washington's guilt in the disaster and refused introspection. Even among the public, there are few strong voices demanding that the US assumes the majority of the responsibility for the humanitarian crisis.

Thanks to The New York Times' "eagle eye," there is China to be blamed. The author criticizes China, the second-largest economy, for contributing less humanitarian aid than Japan, the third-largest. The logic seems clear - with great power comes great responsibility.

There is no principle that says a bigger economy should save more international refugees. No government has officially made such a statement. We need to take actions to save refugees as soon as possible, but we can only do so within our capabilities.

As a developing country which has not fed its entire population, China has its own problems, especially as it has a large number of still-impoverished people. The world is not expecting to see China play a major role in saving these refugees, either.

Besides, China is not geopolitically connected to the crisis, nor to the root causes or its development. The world public opinion is not expecting China to take a big share of Europe's responsibility in the refugee crisis.

Pleas for Washington to open its arms to these migrants are everywhere; criticisms toward the US for messing up Syria but refusing to redress its wrongs are also everywhere.

Unfortunately, the US media turns a deaf ear to these voices.

It is understandable that they are trying to defend US interests. But they should not confuse right and wrong. In this case, keeping silent is better than making baseless accusations.

As for China, it becomes increasingly necessary that the country should make its involvement in migrant crises more noticeable to the rest of the world.

But there might be a new problem: If China outshines the others on this matter, it might be suspected for employing some "ulterior motives," based on the hackneyed rhetoric and mind-set of the Western world. Knowing how to set the balance requires wisdom.

The US is in charge of global public opinion. It is able to sanitize its wrongdoings, while China is not. Now, China can do nothing else, except trying to do better. It might be necessary that China should diplomatically engage in the migrant crisis in Syria.

The crisis might be seeing more problems, and China should make preemptive actions for the public good.