Myanmar Spring Chronicle – Scenes from August 20
(MoeMaKa), August 21, 2026
War-Torn Myanmar, Natural Disasters, and Human-Made Disasters
When we hear the term “natural disaster,” we often assume that it refers to something beyond the control of governments and administrators. Under this view, the responsibility of authorities begins only after disaster strikes—how they respond, reduce suffering, provide relief, and help communities recover.
That understanding, however, is only partly correct.
Some disasters, such as earthquakes, can largely be considered beyond human control. But many others—including floods, landslides, and the worsening effects of climate change—are increasingly linked to human activities and decisions.
To say that nothing can be done to prevent natural disasters can also become a convenient way for past and present authorities to avoid accountability. Even ordinary citizens understand that early-warning systems, preventive measures, emergency rescue and relief, and post-disaster reconstruction all depend heavily on how effectively a country is governed.
Before looking specifically at Myanmar, it is worth examining why natural disasters are becoming more severe around the world, how countries prepare for them, and how they recover afterward.
In China, for example, news reports frequently show severe flooding in urban areas, vehicles being swept away, and large volumes of water rushing through densely populated neighborhoods. Typhoons and even super typhoons have forced millions of people to evacuate, while roads and cities have been submerged.
Such disasters cannot always be separated from the way development has taken place. As populations grow, land is converted into cities, large dams are built across rivers, and fossil fuels are consumed on a massive scale to fuel economic growth. Rapid development brings economic benefits, but societies also have to deal with the environmental consequences of urban expansion and large infrastructure projects.
Global warming is even more complicated because no single country is responsible. It depends heavily on carbon emissions from industrialized countries and on the kinds of energy the world uses.
Scientists have repeatedly warned that global temperatures are rising and have urged governments to cooperate. Yet countries continue to disagree over who should bear the cost. Wealthier and more developed nations are often expected to do more, while developing countries argue that economic growth must come first and that expensive climate measures could slow their development.
Although industrialized countries and major carbon emitters agreed in previous decades to reduce emissions, recent global politics has increasingly shifted toward national self-interest. International cooperation and the idea of a shared “global village” have weakened as governments increasingly pursue their own interests.
This broader trend has serious implications for efforts to reduce the greenhouse effect and the risks associated with climate change. Some wealthy countries may believe that maintaining strong economies and sufficient financial resources to respond and rebuild after disasters is more important than making costly changes beforehand.
But poorer countries, countries with weak or fragmented governance, and particularly those experiencing civil wars are far more vulnerable to the consequences of global climate change.
Wealthy countries may be able to spend large amounts of public money on reconstruction after a disaster. Countries suffering from poor governance and armed conflict, however, face one crisis on top of another—what the Burmese saying describes as being struck by a thief while already weakened by illness.
Countries responsible for higher carbon emissions, major international corporations involved in fossil-fuel extraction and sales, and companies that consume enormous quantities of fossil fuels bear a greater share of responsibility for global warming. Yet they have not necessarily assumed a corresponding responsibility for environmental protection and restoration.
Programs under which wealthier countries and corporations financially support forest conservation in lower-emitting countries have also struggled in recent years. In a world where economically and militarily powerful states increasingly act according to their own interests, the influence of international institutions such as the United Nations has weakened, and global efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions have lost momentum.
Myanmar’s Situation
In Myanmar, recent months have brought almost continuous reports of floods, breached embankments, heavy rainfall, and towns and villages being submerged.
Flooding has affected northern Rakhine State, Lemyethna in Ayeyarwady Region, communities along the Mu River basin in Sagaing Region, and areas including Hpa-An and Myawaddy in Karen State and Mawlamyine in Mon State. In some cases, disasters have occurred one after another; in others, several areas have been affected simultaneously.
When we ask why these floods are happening—whether examining individual incidents or the overall pattern—several human-related factors emerge: deforestation, excessive mining, resource extraction without considering damage to rivers, streams and forests, and uncontrolled expansion of settlements.
These practices did not begin recently. Broadly speaking, environmental degradation has accumulated over the past three or four decades. But conditions have deteriorated more rapidly during the more than five years since the military coup, as governance has weakened and accountability has diminished. Environmental destruction has consequently accelerated and become more severe.
Flooding in the Mu River basin in Sagaing Region and around Hpakant in Kachin State can be directly linked to environmental degradation associated with gold and jade mining and deforestation in their respective watersheds.
Likewise, rare-earth extraction and gold mining in Kachin State and southern Shan State may not always be directly responsible for particular natural disasters, but they have contributed to the destruction and contamination of rivers and streams.
During the civil war, governance systems have deteriorated, while civil-society organizations and local residents have increasingly found themselves unable or afraid to criticize environmentally damaging activities. Under such circumstances, environmental destruction can occur at an extraordinary pace—damage that might once have taken a decade can now happen within a much shorter period.
This environmental degradation, in turn, increases the likelihood of disasters and makes their consequences more severe.
When ordinary people face these disasters, they often receive little or no meaningful assistance or accountability from governing authorities or from organizations responsible for environmental destruction. Communities are therefore left largely on their own to survive, recover, and rebuild.
For this reason, we should not automatically assume that every “natural disaster” is simply an unavoidable act of nature.
Human-made disasters also exist. And many of the disasters we are witnessing today are increasingly shaped—or made far worse—by human actions.