Firms led by US military veterans deliver aid in Africa and Gaza

Swooping low over the banks of a Nile River tributary, an aid flight run by retired American military officers released a stream of food-stuffed sacks over a town emptied by fighting in South Sudan, a country wracked by conflict.

Last week’s air drop was the latest in a controversial development – private contracting firms led by former US intelligence officers and military veterans delivering aid to some of the world’s deadliest conflict zones, in operations organised with governments that are combatants in the conflicts.

The moves are roiling the global aid community, which warns of a more militarised, politicised and profit-seeking trend that could allow governments or combatants to use life-saving aid to control hungry civilian populations and advance war aims.

In South Sudan and Gaza, two for-profit US companies led by American national security veterans are delivering aid in operations backed by the South Sudanese and Israeli governments.

The American contractors say they’re putting their security, logistics and intelligence skills to work in relief operations. Fogbow, the US company that carried out last week’s air drops over South Sudan, says it aims to be a “humanitarian” force.

“We’ve worked for careers, collectively, in conflict zones. And we know how to essentially make very difficult situations work,” said Fogbow President Michael Mulroy, a retired CIA officer and former senior defence official in the first Trump administration, speaking on the airport tarmac in Juba, South Sudan’s capital.

But the UN and many leading non-profit groups say US contracting firms are stepping into aid distribution with little transparency or humanitarian experience, and, crucially, without commitment to humanitarian principles of neutrality and operational independence in war zones.

“What we’ve learned over the years of successes and failures is there’s a difference between a logistics operation and a security operation, and a humanitarian operation,” said Scott Paul, a director at Oxfam America.

“‘Truck and chuck’ doesn’t help people,” Paul said. “It puts people at risk.”

Mulroy acknowledged the controversy over Fogbow’s aid drops, which he said were paid for by the South Sudanese government.

But, he maintained: “We don’t want to replace any entity” in aid work.



Who’s getting aid drops?

Last week’s air drop over South Sudan went without incident, despite fighting nearby. A white cross marked the drop zone. Only a few people could be seen. Fogbow contractors said there were more newly returned townspeople on previous drops.

Fogbow acknowledges glitches in mastering aid drops, including one last year in Sudan’s South Kordofan region that ended up with too-thinly-wrapped grain sacks split open on the ground.

South Sudan said it engaged Fogbow for air drops partly because of the Trump administration’s deep cuts in US Agency for International Development funding.

But two South Sudanese groups question the government’s motives.

“We don’t want to see a humanitarian space being abused by military actors ... under the cover of a food drop,” said Edmund Yakani, head of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organisation, a local civil society group.

Asked about suspicions the aid drops were helping South Sudan’s military aims, Fogbow’s Mulroy said the group has worked with the UN World Food Programme to make sure “this aid is going to civilians.”

“If it wasn’t going to civilians, we would hope that we would get that feedback, and we would cease and desist,” Mulroy said.

In a statement, WFP country director Mary-Ellen McGroarty said: “WFP is not involved in the planning, targeting or distribution of food air-dropped” by Fogbow on behalf of South Sudan’s government, citing humanitarian principles.



A ‘business-driven model’

Longtime humanitarian leaders and analysts are troubled by what they see as a teaming up of warring governments and for-profit contractors in aid distribution.

When one side in a conflict decides where and how aid is handed out, and who gets it, “it will always result in some communities getting preferential treatment,” said Jan Egeland, executive director of the Norwegian Refugee Council.

Sometimes, that set-up will advance strategic aims, as with Netanyahu’s plans to move Gaza’s civilians south, Egeland said.

The involvement of soldiers and security workers, he added, can make it too “intimidating” for some in need to even try to get aid.

Until now, Western donors always understood those risks, Egeland said. But pointing to the Trump administration’s backing of the new aid system in Gaza, he asked: “Why does the US ... want to support what they have resisted with every other war zone for two generations?”

Mark Millar, who has advised the UN and Britain on humanitarian matters in South Sudan and elsewhere, said involving private military contractors risks undermining the distinction between humanitarian assistance and armed conflict.

Private military contractors “have even less sympathy for a humanitarian perspective that complicates their business-driven model,” he said. “And once let loose, they seem to be even less accountable.”