The Grimshaw Review of International Affairs Vol. 2, No. 1 dominance over political and humanitarian spheres, systemically marginalises NGOs that fall outside dominant ideological frameworks (Desaine, 2011, p. 82). These domestic constraints foster a climate of fear and compliance, which is compounded by fraught relationships with international humanitarian actors, who are often seen by local organisations as untrustworthy, self-interested, and overly focused on bureaucratic compliance (Wells and Mung, 2024). Moreover, local leaders criticise externally-driven “capacity building” as little more than a tool for donor risk mitigation – what they describe as teaching the “capacity to comply,” rather than empowering local initiatives (Wells and Mung, 2024). A harmful dynamic in which Myanmar-based organisations are treated as subcontractors rather than partners is thus created, despite the personal risks they face on the ground. Meanwhile, regional responses have been slow and structurally limited. For example, ASEAN’s AHA Centre lacks both the mandate and experience to operate effectively in conflict zones, and its reliance on the Myanmar Red Cross – an organisation perceived to be aligned with the junta – raises concerns about tacit legitimisations of military rule (Centre for Strategic and International Studies, p. 20). Although some regional actors and Western governments have expressed willingness to work with alternative stakeholders – including the NUG and ethnic armed organisations (EAOs), there remains no unified or politically robust mechanism to ensure coordinated humanitarian access into Myanmar (Centre for Strategic and International Studies, p. 21). Ultimately, these power dynamics expose the chronic inadequacies of the global humanitarian system, which has repeatedly fallen short in addressing the statelessness and exclusion of the Rohingya in Myanmar and Bangladesh. While the humanitarian sector has mobilised significant resources, systemic issues – including insufficient funding, exclusionary practices, and the perpetuation of colonial legacies – have limited its effectiveness as a mechanism of transnational solidarity. The scale of humanitarian need in Myanmar is staggering, with one-third of the population – 18.6 million people – requiring assistance in 2024, marking a sharp rise from one million 16