Malaria is a disease that many experts thought had been eliminated in mainland Southeast Asia, but it is now surging in Myanmar. Since 2020, the number of recorded malaria infections in Myanmar has almost tripled; cases in Thailand have skyrocketed from under 4000 to more than 16,600, particularly in regions along the Thai-Myanmar border. This Financial Times news story follows displaced civilians and rebels who are sheltering in forests, showing how complex the entanglement of war, migration, and disease control really is.
To understand why displaced persons are in forests and why they are being displaced, it helps to understand the different actors involved in the conflicts. One significant actor is the military junta, officially called the State Administration Council. The military junta seized power in a February 2021 coup, overthrowing the elected National League for Democracy government. The coup was quickly met with nationwide protests, some of which the army responded to with lethal force. Because of this violent response, many parts of the anti-coup movement shifted into armed resistance. Since then, the army (SAC) has relied on airstrikes, artillery, and village burnings (especially in ethnic minority areas), driving over 3 million people out of their homes. These displaced communities end up hiding in remote, forested areas near their international borders. These border landscapes are precisely the kinds of places where malaria-carrying mosquitoes are common and where medicines, clinics, and testing are hardest to access and maintain – especially when the military junta is also restricting humanitarian access.
On the other side are the groups that are trying to push back against the military. These groups include opposition politicians who formed a “National Unity Government” abroad, local People’s Defense Forces composed of young people and villagers, and older ethnic rebel groups. Many of these camps and support villages are in forested border areas. Civilians often move with the camps or near them, and sometimes cross into Thailand to seek work and safety. Places like the Tak province (near the town of Mae Sot) were already hotspots for malaria before the coup, so the conflict only amplifies that underlying risk by forcing more people to live outdoors without steady access to care.
Finally, the article discusses another set of actors: people who fund and are experts in global health. For about ten years, donors have invested heavily in the Greater Mekong Region to fight drug-resistant malaria, spending about $700 million through different initiatives. As Myanmar’s war disrupts malaria surveillance and treatment, international funding is being cut, and the attention is shifting elsewhere. The Financial Times warns that the combination of civil war, climate-driven mosquito-borne illness, and reduced aid can undo years of progress and allow dangerous strains to spread back into high-burden countries.
The Financial Times frames malaria as a border problem and a global security problem. The Financial Times is a finance-oriented newspaper: it centers on institutions and funding decisions more than the everyday experiences of local migrants or village health workers. The resurgence of malaria is indeed alarming, but it is important not to frame it as a “natural” comeback of an old disease; borders can become zones where multiple forms of vulnerability stack up. On the Thai-Myanmar border, people are pushed into dangerous landscapes to escape the military junta’s violence at the same time that international funds are being cut, causing resources to be pulled away. The result is that marginalized populations bear the consequences of health decisions made far away, highlighting the layering of political risks in these conflicts.
https://www.ft.com/content/6d5e15e4-cff4-415c-996a-643f67bcaef1