Institute of Development Studies | bulletin.ids.ac.uk training programmes in Karen State or relief action in the internally displaced persons (IDP) camps of Kachin State. Secondly, social and political action in Myanmar’s borderlands is often bound up with ethnonational politics (Kiik 2016). This is, for instance, expressed by KWAT stating that besides empowering women in war-torn Kachin State, it also ‘seeks to preserve and maintain Kachin culture and history’ (Peace Insight 2012). However, CSOs in border regions should not be understood as the agents of EAOs. On the contrary, they act as a form of public sphere and can be highly critical of EAOs (Brenner 2018b). Many CSOs have, for instance, repeatedly criticised ethnic armed groups for their involvement in unsustainable resource exploitation, such as mining and logging (e.g. KHRG 2015). The pressure that social and political action exerts on EAOs can, for instance, be witnessed by looking at the ceasefire in Karen State (Brenner 2018a). Since the KNU signed a ceasefire in January 2012, an end of fighting has opened the door to improving the insecure livelihood of marginalised and war-torn communities. Nevertheless, the Karen ceasefire delivered neither long-term development nor human security. In fact, it created new insecurities and grievances for local Karen communities similar to the Kachin ceasefire (Brenner 2019: 100–2). Local rights groups document that the everyday lives of civilians in ceasefire areas are still dominated by militarisation, forced displacement, and uncompensated land confiscation, most often at the hands of army and militia soldiers, who forcefully clear the land for mining operations, agri-businesses, infrastructure development, and military facilities (KHRG 2014, 2015). Local communities and civil society complain that they are neither being consulted by the government nor by the KNU’s new leadership (Brenner 2017). In addition to struggling against the government, foreign investors, and armed groups, local CSOs have developed an increasingly critical perspective of international donors, since the latter have shifted large parts of their support from Thai border-based grass-roots organisations to Myanmar state-led development and relief programmes. Most aid in conflict-affected areas has since been delivered in agreement with militarised state authorities. In its first re-engagement with Myanmar, the World Bank, for instance, granted US$80m directly to the militarycontrolled Ministry of Border Affairs for so-called ‘community driven development’ (World Bank 2013). Unsurprisingly, international partners have been at risk of playing into the hands of military authorities to the detriment of local communities, an issue that has been flagged continuously by local CSOs (e.g. KCSN 2012; Karen Peace Support Network 2014). One stark but telling example was a Finnish-funded project in Karenni State. It operated under the umbrella of the now suspended, Norwegian-led Myanmar Peace Support Initiative (MPSI), which sought to derive quick peace dividends in order to create a buy-in into the peace process among conflict-affected communities. The project IDS Bulletin Vol. 50 No. 3 September 2019 ‘Accountability Amidst Fragility, Conflict, and Violence: Learning from Recent Cases’ 17–36 | 29