When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Coup de Greed: Myanmar Generals Are Following The Money

How can you hold on to wealth if you are no longer in power?

Why a military coup now?
Why a military coup now?
Dominique Moisi

On February 1, did the Burmese generals declare war on their people? Are we witnessing a tragic repeat of the 1988 uprising, when the Myanmar military brutally suppressed popular protests? Why a military coup, and why now — Wasn't the army still effectively in power? And why did the generals decide to follow Donald Trump's lead and belatedly contest the results of an election, which took place on Nov. 8, and whose outcome was definitive? The National League for Democracy, the party of Aung San Suu Kyi, won a clear victory, with more than 80% of the votes.

The answer begins with the fact that Myanmar's generals were motivated by a mixture of humiliation and fear. Their defeat was simply too absolute. They feared the results at the ballot box would push Suu Kyi's party to upset the delicate balance of power between the civilian government and the military leaders. Above all, they feared a possible constitutional reform that would take away the military's privileges, which allow them to monopolize a large proportion of the country's wealth.

Across the world, from Algeria to Egypt to Russia, the transfer of power is made infinitely more complex by its relation to wealth. How can you hold on to wealth if you are no longer in power, when wielding power is the most reliable way of accumulating and retaining wealth? In Egypt and Algeria, the army's argument is essentially: "It's us or anarchy. Let us keep our riches, and we'll keep you alive." It's not that far removed from the knights of the Middle Ages.

In Myanmar, there is no real threat from Muslim fundamentalists. The Rohingya are hardly a radicalized, power-hungry minority.

To justify their recent coup, the military is hiding behind an argument that is at best flimsy, at worst absurd. Like Donald Trump's supporters in the United States, they are claiming to be defending democracy after "stolen elections." It's clear that their real motive has nothing to do with democracy, and more to do with the balance of their bank accounts. The reason for the coup is closer to what the former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan once referred to as "infectious greed."

Myanmar protesters continue to demonstrate in Yangon — Photo: Myat Thu Kyaw/NurPhoto via ZUMA Press

But this "great leap backwards' – 33 years backwards to the coup of 1988 – also has political and strategic causes. Because she refused to distance herself from the army over their treatment of the Rohingyas, Aung San Suu Kyi had lost the status she enjoyed on the international stage when she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The country's generals calculated that the international community is no longer under any illusions about the future of Myanmar. Add to that the COVID-19 crisis, and the world certainly has other priorities.

Beyond this indifference from other countries, the generals also know that they can count on the support of China, which can block all UN Security Council resolutions against them. The Chinese have a vested interest in preventing the leaders of democratic countries from getting involved in what is important to them: the nature of democracy in the world.

The main aim of your coup is to retain control of your country's wealth. This risks backfiring on you.

From Hong Kong to Myanmar, China seems to be deliberately engaged in a battle against the democratic model and its supporters. The current situation feels like a continuation of the debate from the early 1990s between Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington. Democracy has certainly not won, but neither has the clash of civilizations usurped the ideological conflict between the democratic model and despotism. This argument has been complicated by the emergence of "illiberal democracies." How should we categorize India, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines or Turkey?

China does not believe a resurgence of the United States is coming, and politically speaking it has no respect for the European Union. By offering Myanmar's generals its implicit political backing, in much the same way it might have offered military backing in past conflicts, Beijing is seeking to strengthen its influence in Asia, and its position on the world stage. The protesters lining the streets in the main towns of Myanmar are not deceived. They are supporting democracy over and above Aung San Suu Kyi specifically, but they are also denouncing China's interference in their country's affairs.

What should the international community do or not do in the face of a Myanmar military junta that enjoys the protection of China? There is a middle ground, somewhere between doing nothing and exerting real political pressure worthy of the name. And it can be effective. It would mean attacking the leaders of the coup in a way that truly hurts them, targeting their wallets. It would mean saying to them: "The main aim of your coup is to retain control of your country's wealth. This risks backfiring on you." Targeted sanctions against military leaders, like those imposed on Russia, will take away their wealth. What's more, this is 2021, not 1988. The young people protesting on the streets did not experience the brutal suppression of the protests in 1988. They are mobilizing on the internet, which cannot be completely shut off without damaging the economy and therefore the generals' own wealth.

Despite their differences, the crises in Hong Kong and Myanmar both illustrate the frailty of democracy, but also the resilience of its supporters.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


The Unsustainable Future Of Fish Farming — On Vivid Display In Turkish Waters

Currently, 60% of Turkey's fish currently comes from cultivation, also known as fish farming, compared to just 10% two decades ago. The short-sightedness of this shift risks eliminating fishing output from both the farms and the open seas along Turkey's 5,200 miles of coastline.

Photograph of two fishermen throwing a net into the Tigris river in Turkey.

Traditional fishermen on the Tigris river, Turkey.

Dûrzan Cîrano/Wikimeidia
İrfan Donat

ISTANBUL — Turkey's annual fish production includes 515,000 tons from cultivation and 335,000 tons came from fishing in open waters. In other words, 60% of Turkey's fish currently comes from cultivation, also known as fish farming.

It's a radical shift from just 20 years ago when some 600,000 tons, or 90% of the total output, came from fishing. Now, researchers are warning the current system dominated by fish farming is ultimately unsustainable in the country with 8,333 kilometers (5,177 miles) long.

Professor Mustafa Sarı from the Maritime Studies Faculty of Bandırma 17 Eylül University believes urgent action is needed: “Why were we getting 600,000 tons of fish from the seas in the 2000’s and only 300,000 now? Where did the other 300,000 tons of fish go?”

Professor Sarı is challenging the argument from certain sectors of the industry that cultivation is the more sustainable approach. “Now we are feeding the fish that we cultivate at the farms with the fish that we catch from nature," he explained. "The fish types that we cultivate at the farms are sea bass, sea bram, trout and salmon, which are fed with artificial feed produced at fish-feed factories. All of these fish-feeds must have a significant amount of fish flour and fish oil in them.”

That fish flour and fish oil inevitably must come from the sea. "We have to get them from natural sources. We need to catch 5.7 kilogram of fish from the seas in order to cultivate a sea bream of 1 kg," Sarı said. "Therefore, we are feeding the fish to the fish. We cannot cultivate fish at the farms if the fish in nature becomes extinct. The natural fish need to be protected. The consequences would be severe if the current policy is continued.”

Keep reading...Show less

The latest