World leaders are struggling over how to engage with pariah states and groups. Using the traditional model of humanitarian aid as a form of political engagement is not the answer.
Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are currently divided over how to engage with Myanmar’s military junta ruling the country since the February 2021 coup, while much of the West is adamant in its refusal to countenance doing so. In contrast with Myanmar, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, an internationally ostracized leader, has now been welcomed back into the fold of Arab world leaders. There are no indications of the Myanmar junta changing its approach as a result of Western sanctions and isolation, nor has the Assad regime seemingly softened its hard-line attitudes toward finding a political solution to the conflict affecting Syria for more than a decade.
In the absence of any political action, humanitarian aid is typically the default response to local populations’ acute needs. But the ability of humanitarian organizations to operate in contexts of contested regimes such as Myanmar is very limited.
About the authors
Charles Petrie
Charles Petrie is a former U.N. assistant secretary general. He has more than 30 years of experience working in conflict and post-conflict settings. He was named Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 2014.
Scott Guggenheim
Scott Guggenheim is a development anthropologist who has worked extensively on designs for poor peoples’ participation in large development projects.
