In an aid delivery operation over the Upper Nile state in South Sudan, a plane operated by a private company run by retired American military officers dropped food supplies to the town of Nasir, which had been devastated by conflict. This recent air drop is part of a controversial trend where private contracting firms, led by former U.S. military and intelligence personnel, are providing aid in some of the world's most dangerous conflict zones, often with the backing of the governments involved in these conflicts.
The air drop represents a significant shift in the humanitarian landscape, causing concerns within the global aid community. Critics argue that this trend towards privatization of aid distribution could lead to a more militarized and politicized approach to humanitarian assistance. Specifically, there are fears that governments might leverage life-saving aid to impose control over hungry civilian populations and further their own war agendas.
In South Sudan and Gaza, two U.S. companies—Fogbow and Safe Reach Solutions—are delivering aid under the support of the South Sudanese and Israeli governments respectively. Fogbow, responsible for the recent food airdrops, asserts that it is aiming to function as a humanitarian entity, applying its expertise in logistics and security to assist those in desperate need. Michael Mulroy, the president of Fogbow and a former CIA officer, emphasized that their operations intend to alleviate suffering rather than to replace traditional humanitarian organizations.
However, many non-profit organizations and the United Nations are skeptical. They highlight that private firms like Fogbow lack the necessary transparency, humanitarian experience, and commitment to operational independence required to ethically deliver aid in conflict zones. Scott Paul, a director at Oxfam America, noted that there is a stark difference between logistics and humanitarian operations, stating that the delivery method known as “truck and chuck” endangers lives rather than aids them.
During the aid drop over Nasir, which took place amidst ongoing fighting, only a handful of residents were visible. Fogbow’s previous deliveries had more attendees as people began returning to the area following conflict. The South Sudanese government has engaged Fogbow for these air drops partly due to significant cuts in U.S. Agency for International Development funding under the Trump administration, as explained by Albino Akol Atak, South Sudan's Humanitarian Minister.
Nevertheless, local civil society groups harbor suspicions regarding the government's intentions behind these aid deliveries. Edmund Yakani, the head of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization, emphasized the need to ensure that humanitarian activities are not misused by military actors. Mulroy responded to such concerns by stating that Fogbow collaborates with the U.N. World Food Program to confirm that aid reaches actual civilians.
The aid operation in Gaza, led by Safe Reach Solutions, also faces scrutiny for potentially aiding Israeli military objectives. The American-led mission aligns with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy to consolidate Gaza's population in the southern region, thereby facilitating military actions in other territories against Hamas. Analysts express concern that this could lead to forced migrations and exacerbated humanitarian crises.
Experts note that when one faction in a conflict controls the distribution of aid, it inevitably results in favored treatment for specific communities, potentially worsening tensions and hindering genuine humanitarian assistance. Jan Egeland of the Norwegian Refugee Council cautioned against allowing military contractors to interfere in humanitarian efforts, warning that such involvement undermines the essential distinction between aid and armed conflict.
As the global landscape concerning humanitarian aid continues to evolve, both Fogbow in South Sudan and Safe Reach Solutions in Gaza exemplify the complex interplay between military interests and humanitarian efforts, raising serious ethical questions about the future of aid distribution in conflict zones.
