The Economist is a global newspaper, but occasionally we
have stories that have special relevance for their region—and then we
shuffle the order of our leaders, to bring different editorials to the
cover slot in different editions. This is one of those rare weeks when
we have no fewer than three covers.
In Britain and Europe we look at how
the bonds that hold the United Kingdom together
are fraying. The union is now weaker than at any point in
living memory. The causes are many, but Brexit is the most important.
Political leaders in London, Edinburgh and Belfast have put their
country at risk by the way they have managed Britain’s departure from
the European Union. Boris Johnson, the prime minister, has done it
carelessly, by putting party above country and espousing a hard Brexit.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish
National Party, has done it determinedly, by exploiting Scots’ dislike
of the Brexit settlement. Arlene Foster, first minister of Northern
Ireland and head of the Democratic Unionist Party has done it stupidly,
by rejecting the softer Brexit proposed by Theresa May, Mr Johnson's
predecessor.
If the Scots, Northern Irish or even the Welsh choose to go their own
way, they should be allowed to do so—but only once it is clearly their
settled will. That is by no means the case yet, and this newspaper hopes
it never will be.
In North America we report on
the era of the political CEO.
Business and politics are growing closer in America, with
worrying consequences. Sometimes this is in pursuit of honourable
causes, as in the protest of chief executives over new laws restricting
voting in Georgia and other states. Sometimes it is visible in the
statesman-CEO: the latest manifesto from Jamie Dimon, boss of JPMorgan
Chase, pronounces on military procurement and criminal justice among
many other weighty concerns. Most broadly of all, it is reflected in how
the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group, has extended the corporate
remit to include all stakeholders, for the success of firms, communities
and the country. At The Economist
we strongly support the protection of voting rights. We believe
that companies operating in competitive markets advance social progress.
Nonetheless, as classical liberals, we also believe that concentrations
of power are dangerous. Businesspeople will always lobby for their own
advantage and the closer they get to the government, the more harm they
threaten to both the economy and politics.
And in Asia we warn that Myanmar could become
Asia’s next failed state.
Daily protests continue and soldiers are rampaging through
rebellious districts, beating and killing at random; the overall death
toll has passed 700. Citizens have burned down shops tied to the army
and a general strike has paralysed businesses and public services. In
the borderlands some of the 20 or so armed groups that have battled the
government on-and-off for decades are taking advantage of the crisis to
seize military outposts or caches of weapons. A vacuum is being created
in a territory bigger than France that abuts Asia’s biggest powers,
China and India. It will be filled by violence and suffering. Although
Myanmar is not yet as lawless as Afghanistan, it is rapidly heading in
that direction. The ruin of Myanmar is not only a calamity for the 54m
Burmese; it also
threatens to spread chaos as drugs, disease and refugees spill over
Myanmar’s borders. |