In any political system, the way the government runs an economy is a fairly good proxy for how well they run other aspects of society. Economies that are run attentively, with an eye to growth and prosperity, tend to exist within orderly, open societies. The opposite is also true. Economies that are run badly — with little care given to the suffering of the people — or greedily, in the interests of only the ruling elite, surmount societies with the same features. Bad governance means poverty. Tyranny means privation. Some examples of how this works in Myanmar were recently reported upon by The Economist. It noted high commodity prices, rationing and long lines for basic staples in Yangon. Even discounted cooking oil, bought from wholesalers, is more than 50 percent more expensive than it was last year. We live in a time of inflation, but this level of inflation is caused by the poor governance of a military junta that took power in a coup last year. Inflation is everywhere. The currency — the kyat — has been devalued to a third of its value before the coup d’etat. For a country that imports its staples, as Myanmar does, this means an increase in poverty. The junta has reacted to this poverty — wages are back where they were a decade ago — with callousness and lecturing. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing says he wants Myanmar’s poor to eat less. At the heart of this is an economic fallacy so absurd that only a military regime could have thought it up: Because Myanmar imports so many consumer staples, it must cut its consumption to improve the country’s balance of trade. If this means poverty, if this means starvation and a shortage of essential medicines, so be it. At the same time, it must be remembered, the generals are fighting a civil war. It is a conflict of wide implications: Allies of the pre-coup government, which included the National League for Democracy, whose leaders are now in prison, fight alongside ethnic and cultural minorities whom the party persecuted in tandem with the generals when it was in power. The generals’ economic plan is coldly focused on self-interest and the preservation of military power. Dr. Azeem Ibrahim At a time of civil conflict and increases in poverty, the generals’ economic plan becomes more logical. It is built on an indifference to ordinary people — their needs, hopes and ambitions — and is instead coldly focused on self-interest and the preservation of military power. One unspoken aspect of the economic crisis is what it says about the genocide Myanmar’s military committed and is committing against the Rohingya. The destruction of their villages, the expulsion of hundreds of thousands and the killing of many who remained behind have the same origins as the junta’s economic policy: Cruelty mixed with ineptitude. And the fact that this genocide goes unacknowledged and unatoned for by the generals gives a sense of how long both civil war and economic crisis might persist. It is in no country’s self-interest to expel hundreds of thousands of citizens and to destroy political credibility and international goodwill in so doing. But if these policies are driven by malice rather than reason, they can be pursued in contravention of morality and good sense. The world has options in reacting to this state of affairs. The Economist speculates that the plan to centralize the economy on the junta’s terms aims to create a new class of corporatist rich to prop up the regime with their money and join with it to manage markets on the generals’ terms. This can be made difficult by international sanctions and the prudent use of financial regulation in other markets. Diplomatically, the world can go further. It can continue to investigate the Rohingya genocide through legal processes and to seek justice in international tribunals. It can ensure that the members of the anti-junta coalition that try to operate internationally make clear their commitment to a free Myanmar where all ethnic and religious minorities will be tolerated and at liberty. And the world can make it clear to the generals that this period will not resemble previous times of military rule, where the outside held itself back on the basis that Myanmar’s internal affairs were either no business of outsiders or were too difficult to influence in any case. Myanmar’s Rohingya genocide is an episode of unmatched human tragedy, but it is also a factor in how the world reacts to the junta. It is the anchor that could link legal proceedings against the military for its violent crimes to action against the generals now starving the people of Myanmar. Just as a poorly managed economy means a badly governed country, crimes committed against one people tend to radiate and extend to others. Luckily for the world, punishing one crime can serve as a beginning to the punishment of all — and holds out the hope of justice to come. Dr. Azeem Ibrahim is the director of special initiatives at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington D.C. and author of “The Rohingyas: Inside Myanmar’s Genocide” (Hurst, 2017). Twitter: @AzeemIbrahim Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point of view