An established practice of global humanitarian action is engaging with the local. That’s easier said than done, of course, and as the wider world becomes ever more present in Myanmar difficulties are starting to surface. A report issued by the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies last December addresses this topic. Written by Sarah L Clarke, it’s called Working Inside the Triangles: Engaging with Locally Led Peace Initiatives in Myanmar. I’ve long admired the work CPCS does in Myanmar, notably its superb series of listening projects. Clarke’s analysis is another timely contribution.

The report makes three main recommendations for international actors. First, they should acknowledge the level of complexity at play in Myanmar, and to navigate it should seek locally-led solutions. Second, they should adopt a long-term perspective. Third, they should “work inside the triangles” (executive, legislature, military, for example) by always keeping in mind the needs of Bamar majority citizens who remain key actors in building lasting peace. It presents brief case studies to illustrate these points.

One relates to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. At a July 10, 2013 meeting of his Group of Friends on Myanmar, Ban publicly expressed concern about “the plight of the Rohingya population and their disturbing humanitarian situation”. This is precisely the kind of statement leaders of international society are expected to make at times of humanitarian crisis. In the Myanmar case, though, Clarke notes that senior officials like Ban operate “in a context where anti-western sentiment combined with animosity against outsiders, or people considered to be ‘non-Burmese’ are easily drawn upon and manipulated with disastrous effect”. Inadvertently, his statement strengthened hardliners and undermined moderates.

Another concerns grassroots trust-building workshops launched by a Myanmar NGO in Rakhine State. Reaching out to Rakhine Buddhists, NGO staffers initially faced deep hostility, and dark rumours about their motivations spread within the community. By continuing to talk with those prepared to accept them, however, and by drawing on shared Buddhist teachings, they began to make progress. “Eventually, a baseline of trust was built and it was possible to raise the most sensitive issues regarding perceptions of Rohingya communities. Out of this work, Rakhine leaders eventually requested support of the organization to facilitate dialogue with Rohingya community members.”

Clarke’s argument about seeking locally-led solutions to navigate Myanmar’s deep complexities emerges clearly from these linked stories. What is less easy to determine is the appropriate role for guardians of international human rights norms. Quite what UN officials such as the secretary-general and the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar should do when confronted with severe human rights violations in, say, Rakhine State is very hard to specify.