A recent paper, prepared jointly by Chatham House and the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, estimated that close to 50% of the populations living in fragile and conflict-affected states were in contexts "where relations between a significant number of international actors and national authorities are estranged". Rather than being an outlier, Myanmar is tragically part of a new normal.
The international aid community has yet to adapt to this new reality. Economic sanctions and restrictions on more structural aid continue to be a prominent part of the international toolkit for dealing with regimes that violate international norms and rules or are beset by conflict. Such an approach neglects to take into account that sanctions and interruptions of structural aid often end up hurting the poor more than the rich, particularly the political elites who the sanctions are most meant to target.
Some donors try to limit the impact of their political measures on the poor with humanitarian aid. Based on the estimated needs -- hence the gigantic sums requested -- the UN humanitarian appeals to which donors respond obscure for the most part the reality of what is achievable on the ground in contexts of contested governments. The classic humanitarian response that adheres to existing levels of donor financial accountability and respects the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence result in many populations being unreachable. A new complementary form of donor engagement needs to be found.
