By:
• Sonny Inbaraj Krishnan

• November 26, 2024 , 7:00 PM

Myanmar serves as a case study demonstrating how the combined pressures of climate change and violent conflict can heighten societal vulnerability, leading to potential security implications. With multiple cascading risks in a climate emergency, all intertwined after the 2021 coup, is it on a trajectory of state failure in a polycrisis? Sonny Inbaraj Krishnan explores this question with Tin Shine Aung, Consulting Director at Shwetaungthagathu Reform Initiative Centre and a PhD candidate in Sustainability Science at the University of Lisbon.

Sonny Krishnan: In 2022, economic historian Adam Tooze warned of an impending “polycrisis,” a scenario where multiple crises, exacerbated by climate change, interact synergistically, resulting in a far more complex and perilous situation than the sum of their individual impacts. How does this relate to Myanmar’s post-2021 coup scenario?

Tin Shine Aung: Absolutely. When we talk about Myanmar being in a polycrisis, we mean that the country faces multiple overlapping crises that interact and fuel each other, creating a cycle of instability and suffering. Let me break it down. 

First, there’s the political fallout from the military coup in February 2021. Before the coup, Myanmar was managing the COVID-19 pandemic relatively well. However, when the military took over, public trust in government initiatives, such as the vaccination program, collapsed. Many healthcare workers joined the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) to protest the regime, leaving hospitals understaffed and under-resourced. This caused the healthcare system to fall apart just when people needed it the most, leading to soaring death rates—not just from COVID but from untreated conditions across the board. 

Then, the situation quickly escalated into nationwide conflict. Initially, peaceful protests against the coup were met with brutal crackdowns. Many young people responded by taking up arms and joining ethnic armed groups or resistance movements. This turned Myanmar’s long-standing civil war into an all-out fight involving the military, the opposition National Unity Government, and numerous ethnic armed organizations.   

The consequences of this civil war are devastating. The economy has been hit hard—key sectors like agriculture and garment manufacturing have collapsed, inflation has tripled, and families are struggling to survive. Young people are either fleeing the country to avoid conscription or losing their lives on the battlefield, which is tearing the social fabric apart.  

But it’s even more complicated than just a military struggle. The opposition itself is fragmented. There are groups like the National Unity Government (NUG), but also ethnic organizations like the Karen National Union (KNU), the Kachin Independence Organization (KIO), and the Arakan Army (AA). They all agree on resisting the junta, but they have very different visions for Myanmar’s future. For example, the Arakan Army wants an independent state, or at least a confederation, while others are pushing only for a federal system. The NUG has struggled to unite these groups under one common strategy, so the opposition remains fragmented, which just prolongs the conflict and deepens the crisis. 

On top of all that, there is the impact of climate change. Take Cyclone Mocha in 2023, for example. It was one of the most powerful cyclones ever to hit Rakhine State and devastated entire communities. The cyclone caused catastrophic destruction, particularly in already vulnerable areas such as the Rohingya camps near Sittwe. Their shelters were obliterated, leaving them without food, clean water, or medical care. Even though the same cyclone hit both Rohingya and Rakhine communities at the same time and in the same region, the existing resilience of the two groups was different, resulting in greater devastation for the more vulnerable Rohingya which really highlighted the systemic neglect and discrimination the Rohingya have faced for decades. 

So, Myanmar’s situation isn’t just one crisis but a polycrisis: a deadly cocktail of political turmoil, public health, education, and financial and livelihood failures, escalating civil war, and climate-induced disasters. The political turmoil weakens public services such as health care and education, the war destroys livelihoods and displaces communities, and climate disasters like cyclones expose the deep inequalities and the failure of the state to protect its most vulnerable citizens. 

Sonny Krishnan: There seems to be gaps in knowledge on reporting the concept of ‘global polycrisis’ although the term began to be used more regularly in online reports and in some media coverage from 2022 and in 2023. But it is still a nascent term which is used more by NGOs than by media professionals. Why is this so and can you shed some light on this anomaly? 

Tin Shine Aung: The term “global polycrisis” has been slow to catch on in mainstream media, even though it’s been used more by NGOs and academic discussions. One reason for this is the complexity of the term—it refers to multiple crises that interact and make the situation worse, which can be hard to explain in simple news stories. Media outlets often prefer to focus on individual crises like climate disasters or conflicts, which are easier for audiences to understand and engage with.

Well, I think part of the issue is that most newsrooms are divided into specialized sections—like politics, climate, or health—so there’s not always much collaboration when it comes to covering interconnected risks. Journalists often focus on individual crises because it’s easier for readers to understand a specific issue, like a natural disaster or political unrest, rather than how all these different crises are linked.  

On the other hand, NGOs are more likely to use the term because they deal with global issues that are inherently interconnected. For them, “polycrisis” is useful because it helps explain how different problems—like poverty, war, and climate change—aren’t isolated but impact each other. 

I think journalists are still hesitant to use a term like “polycrisis” because it’s not yet something the public is widely familiar with. It’s a complex term that requires some unpacking, and it’s not always easy to convey in a typical news story. 

For the term to become more common in media, journalists need better tools to explain how crises are connected. Media organizations could focus more on integrated reporting, which breaks down the barriers between different news sections and highlights the bigger picture. Over time, as more people see examples of how crises are linked, I think “polycrisis” will become a regular part of the media conversation. 

Sonny Krishnan: The recent Typhoon Yagi in September 2024 which brought the worst floods in Myanmar's recent history and left a trail of destruction is a clear indication of the vicious feedback loop in a polycrisis. To make matters worse, fighting in all typhoon-affected states and regions decreased community coping capacities, particularly among the internally displaced fleeing the junta. What more can you tell us?  

Tin Shine Aung: Typhoon Yagi is another good example of how Myanmar’s interconnected crises amplify disasters. Despite not being in the storm’s direct path, Myanmar experienced the highest death toll, even surpassing Vietnam, which was hit directly. The root cause lies in the country’s political instability and ongoing conflict. Rescue operations in flood-affected areas like Shan State were severely disrupted by clashes between the military and revolutionary forces. The junta-imposed blockades on essential food supplies like rice and medicine in regions under opposition influence, worsening the humanitarian crisis. 

Destroyed infrastructure and pre-existing vulnerabilities compounded the situation. Entire communities were cut off, food reserves were wiped out by flood, and emergency shelters were overcrowded and under-resourced. The military’s restrictions on international aid delayed relief efforts, leaving flood victims with little to no support.   

In essence, Typhoon Yagi didn’t just cause flooding; it exposed Myanmar’s fractured governance, systemic neglect, and the devastating impact of its polycrisis, where political instability, war, and climate vulnerabilities collide. 

Sonny Krishnan: By analyzing historical and contemporary case studies, we can gain valuable insights into the factors that influence societal outcomes, including collapse, adaptation, and transformation. Which examples successfully reduced violence, maintained societal functions, and built future resilience while improving people's lives, and which failed or even worsened the situation by increasing tensions and making it more fragile? 

Tin Shine Aung: Analyzing historical and contemporary case studies gives us insights into how societies collapse or transform. South Africa’s post-apartheid reconciliation and South Korea’s post-war recovery highlight the importance of national unity and economic reforms in improving people’s lives. In contrast, failed cases like Rwanda and Syria demonstrate the dangers of escalating tensions and societal fragility when divisions are not addressed.   

Myanmar’s situation is somewhere in between. The country is at a critical juncture—it can either follow a path toward successful transformation, like South Africa or South Korea, or it risks sliding further into chaos and instability. Drawing lessons from South Africa and South Korea, Myanmar’s best chance for stability and progress lies in the unity of its pro-democracy factions. If Myanmar can unite its opposition groups and move forward with a clear, shared vision for the country’s future, it could still find a way to transform. But without that unity, the country is likely to remain trapped in its current crisis, with no clear path forward. 

Sonny Krishnan: With these examples, how can Myanmar be steered away from a trajectory of state failure and towards a path of stability and positive change? Multi-level governance to build resilient communities in the face of the polycrisis, fostering collaboration across local, national, and international levels seems to have taken a backseat with the faltering of ASEAN's Five-Point Consensus and the ineffectiveness of global powers to reign in the military junta.

Tin Shine Aung: It is important to note that each polycrisis has unique characteristics and stakeholders, and the current global political atmosphere and geopolitics must be carefully considered. Myanmar’s current situation reflects elements of both success and failure as it faces deep internal divisions and a critical geopolitical position between China and India. China’s interest in Myanmar, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), adds pressure, as Myanmar is strategically important for China’s access to the Indian Ocean as it exists while confronting the US in the Taiwan issue under the one-China policy and balancing against India in the Indian Ocean.  

China will be the main target in the upcoming Trump 2.0 administration, and Myanmar’s pro-democracy groups must be strategic in navigating the new political landscape and geopolitics. ASEAN, as a regional bloc, could also play a pivotal role by adopting a stronger stance, engaging pro-democracy forces, and facilitating dialogue to counteract both internal divisions and external pressures. However, this is very challenging as ASEAN needs consensus to act, and some countries like Laos and Cambodia may have different perspectives.  

In my opinion, Myanmar’s solution lies in unity among the pro-democracy groups; without this, the country will face nothing but more chaos. Myanmar cannot gain anything meaningful from the Trump administration, including the recognition of NUG, unless it can demonstrate how it aligns with Trump’s vision. First, they must unite key pro-democracy groups, such as the KIO, KNU, and other more moderate factions, including the Rohingya, under a transitional constitution and inclusive government reforms within the NUG. This must include abolishing discriminatory laws, such as the 1982 Citizenship Law, which has been a tool in the Rohingya genocide.  

In conclusion, Myanmar must heed the lessons of both successful and failed cases: unity, strategic political reforms, and careful management of external geopolitical pressures are critical to reducing violence, preserving societal functions, and building resilience. If Myanmar fails to unite and address its internal divisions, it risks becoming a fragile state vulnerable to further external manipulation, particularly under China’s growing influence.