Aiding Who? Humanitarian Aid and the Continuation of War by Other Means

Explore how humanitarian aid is diverted and fuels conflict in war zones.

Paper reviewed:

Barak Corren, Netta and Boxman, Jonathan, Aiding Who? Humanitarian Aid and the Continuation of War by Other Means (August 08, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5380004 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5380004

Summary

A recent study reveals that humanitarian aid is frequently diverted by armed groups and corrupt officials, perpetuating conflict. The research challenges the humanitarian community to rethink its approach to aid delivery.

Key Findings

The study "Aiding Who? Humanitarian Aid and the Continuation of War by Other Means" by Netta Barak-Corren and Jonathan Boxman reveals several critical findings regarding humanitarian aid and its diversion in conflict zones. The key findings include:

• Humanitarian aid is frequently diverted, with significant portions being siphoned off by armed groups, local power brokers, and corrupt officials. For example, in Somalia, it's estimated that up to 50% of aid is diverted en route to beneficiaries.
• Aid diversion is not an aberration but is deeply embedded in humanitarian operations, financial planning, and field worker expectations. This is evident in cases such as Afghanistan, where aid diversion has been a persistent issue throughout the conflict.
• The humanitarian community has normalized aid diversion practices, often prioritizing the principle of humanity (delivering aid) over neutrality, impartiality, and independence. This normalization is seen in the accommodation of local power brokers and armed groups in aid delivery.
• The study highlights that aid diversion mechanisms are pervasive and include not just physical theft but also financial diversion and employment schemes that empower crisis perpetrators. For instance, in Syria, the Assad regime benefited significantly from aid diversion practices.
• The Gaza Strip case, managed by UNRWA, presents a unique scenario where aid has become a quasi-governmental operation, with significant evidence of aid diversion and complicity between UNRWA and Hamas.

Implications

Business and Policy Implications

The findings of this study have significant implications for businesses, policymakers, and humanitarian organizations. Key implications include:

• The need for a new model of humanitarian aid delivery that prioritizes preventing aid from fueling conflicts and sustaining war machines of tyrants and terrorists.
• Humanitarian organizations must consider alternative approaches, such as physically securing aid distribution or partnering with transparent and effective local forces for security.
• The importance of transparency and accountability in humanitarian operations to prevent aid diversion and ensure that aid reaches its intended beneficiaries.
• Donors and humanitarian organizations must be willing to terminate operations if local actors refuse to abstain from aid diversion and implement effective prevention measures.
• The necessity of addressing the root causes of conflicts rather than just providing temporary relief, which can sometimes perpetuate the conflicts.

Introduction

The international community faces a pressing challenge in delivering humanitarian aid to civilians in conflict zones without inadvertently supporting the perpetrators of violence. The study "Aiding Who? Humanitarian Aid and the Continuation of War by Other Means" addresses this issue by examining the gap between the United Nations' humanitarian principles and actual practices in various conflict zones. The research compares major humanitarian interventions in several conflict areas, including Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Ethiopia, and the Gaza Strip, to identify practices that enable effective aid delivery while minimizing diversion.

Background and Context

Humanitarian aid has become a critical component of international responses to conflicts and crises. However, the delivery of aid in complex environments is fraught with challenges, including the risk of aid diversion. The United Nations' humanitarian principles—humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence—are designed to guide aid delivery. Despite these principles, aid diversion remains a significant issue, with various reports and studies indicating that a substantial portion of aid does not reach its intended beneficiaries.

The context of humanitarian aid has evolved, with prolonged conflicts in regions like the Middle East and Africa presenting ongoing challenges. The study highlights that aid diversion is not merely a matter of theft or corruption but is often deeply ingrained in the systems and practices of humanitarian operations. Understanding the historical and current context of humanitarian aid is crucial for developing effective strategies to prevent diversion and ensure that aid alleviates human suffering without perpetuating conflicts.

The research problem addressed by this study is the persistent issue of aid diversion and its implications for humanitarian efforts. By examining various case studies and the mechanisms of aid diversion, the study aims to lay the groundwork for exploring alternative models of aid delivery that can effectively reduce human suffering without sustaining conflicts. The study's findings and implications are crucial for policymakers, humanitarian organizations, and businesses involved in or affected by humanitarian aid operations.

As the study progresses, it will be essential to consider the complex interplay between humanitarian aid, conflict dynamics, and the interests of various stakeholders. The next part of this blog series will delve deeper into the specific case studies and the mechanisms of aid diversion, providing further insights into the challenges and potential solutions in the realm of humanitarian aid.

Main Results

The study "Aiding Who? Humanitarian Aid and the Continuation of War by Other Means" by Netta Barak-Corren and Jonathan Boxman presents a comprehensive analysis of the complex dynamics surrounding humanitarian aid in conflict zones. The main findings of this research are multifaceted and reveal the intricate mechanisms of aid diversion, its normalization, and the implications for humanitarian efforts.

Pervasiveness of Aid Diversion

The study highlights that aid diversion is not an anomaly but a deeply embedded practice within humanitarian operations. The authors examined various conflict zones, including Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Gaza. In each case, they found evidence of widespread aid diversion, often facilitated by local power brokers, armed groups, and even government officials.

Mechanisms of Aid Diversion

The research identifies several mechanisms through which aid diversion occurs:

• Physical Diversion: Aid is diverted en route to its intended beneficiaries. For example, in Somalia, it's estimated that up to 50% of aid is diverted before it reaches the intended recipients.
• Financial Diversion: Funds allocated for humanitarian aid are misappropriated. The Oil for Food program in Iraq is a notable example, where an estimated $1.8 billion out of $48 billion was diverted.
• Employment Schemes: Humanitarian organizations often employ locals recommended by power brokers or armed groups, further entrenching diversion practices.

Normalization of Aid Diversion

The study reveals that aid diversion has become normalized within the humanitarian community. This normalization is driven by:

1. The Principle of Humanity: The imperative to deliver aid often overrides concerns about diversion.
2. Operational Necessity: Humanitarian organizations rely on local partners and power brokers to access beneficiaries, even if it means tolerating diversion.
3. Sophistication of Aid Diverters: Over time, aid diverters have become more sophisticated, establishing NGO fronts and becoming implementing partners of international NGOs.

Case Study Insights

The comparative case studies provide detailed insights into the dynamics of aid diversion in different conflict zones:

• Somalia: The WFP's aid transport, storage, and security are entrusted to local bidders who form a cartel, diverting a significant portion of the aid.
• Afghanistan: The Taliban imposes taxes on humanitarian aid and infiltrates humanitarian organizations by securing positions for its members.
• Syria: The Assad regime dictates the terms of humanitarian assistance, diverting aid to loyalist strongholds.
• Yemen: The Houthis disrupt aid delivery, demanding cuts from the aid budget and kidnapping UN workers.
• Ethiopia: USAID whistleblowers exposed "industrial-scale" aid diversion, leading to a temporary suspension of aid.

Methodology Insights

The study employs a qualitative research approach, analyzing reports from the UN, USAID, Human Rights Watch, and other sources to understand the practices and mechanisms of aid diversion. This methodology is crucial for:

• Uncovering Hidden Practices: By examining internal reports and documents, the study sheds light on practices that are not openly acknowledged.
• Comparative Analysis: The examination of multiple case studies allows for the identification of common patterns and differences in aid diversion mechanisms.

The importance of this methodology lies in its ability to provide a nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics surrounding humanitarian aid. By analyzing real-world examples, the study offers insights that can inform policy and practice.

Analysis and Interpretation

The findings of this study have significant implications for the humanitarian community and policymakers. The pervasive nature of aid diversion and its normalization within humanitarian operations suggest that the current model of aid delivery is flawed. The study indicates that:

• Aid is Fungible: Regardless of the altruistic motivations behind aid, it can be converted into power and profit by local power brokers and armed groups.
• Humanitarian Principles are Contradictory: The principle of humanity often clashes with the principles of neutrality, independence, and impartiality, leading to a self-contradictory humanitarian model.

The analysis suggests that to effectively alleviate human suffering without perpetuating conflicts, new models of aid delivery must be explored. These could include:

• Securing Aid Distribution: Humanitarian organizations could physically secure aid distribution or partner with external forces that can provide effective security.
• Conditioning Aid: Aid delivery could be conditioned on local actors abstaining from diversion activities.
• Terminating Operations: In cases where diversion is rampant, humanitarian organizations might need to terminate operations until local conditions improve.

The study's insights are crucial for businesses and policymakers involved in or affected by humanitarian aid operations. Understanding the dynamics of aid diversion can help in designing more effective aid programs and mitigating the risks associated with operating in conflict zones.

As the humanitarian community faces an inflection point, with aid budgets being cut and donor nations growing reluctant to fund the current aid model, the need for reform is evident. The study by Barak-Corren and Boxman provides a critical foundation for exploring alternative models that prioritize preventing aid from fueling conflicts. The next part of this blog series will further explore these implications and potential solutions.

Practical Implications

The findings of this study have significant implications for businesses, policymakers, and humanitarian organizations operating in conflict zones. The pervasive nature of aid diversion and the normalization of corrupt practices within the humanitarian community underscore the need for a fundamental shift in how aid is delivered and managed.

Real-World Applications

The study's insights can be applied in various ways:

• Risk Management: Businesses operating in conflict zones can better assess and mitigate risks associated with aid diversion by understanding the local dynamics and diversion mechanisms.
• Aid Program Design: Humanitarian organizations can design more effective aid programs by prioritizing transparency, accountability, and the involvement of local stakeholders.
• Policy Reforms: Policymakers can use the study's findings to inform policy reforms that address the root causes of aid diversion and promote more sustainable and equitable aid delivery models.

Strategic Implications

The study highlights the need for humanitarian organizations and businesses to rethink their strategies in conflict zones:

• Collaboration and Partnerships: Building partnerships with local stakeholders, governments, and other humanitarian organizations can help mitigate the risks associated with aid diversion.
• Innovative Solutions: Developing innovative solutions, such as using technology to track aid distribution and monitor diversion, can improve the effectiveness of aid programs.
• Contextual Understanding: Understanding the local context and the complex dynamics of aid diversion is crucial for developing effective strategies that address the specific needs and challenges of each conflict zone.

Who Should Care?

The study's findings are relevant to a wide range of stakeholders, including:

• Humanitarian Organizations: Organizations involved in aid delivery in conflict zones need to understand the dynamics of aid diversion and develop strategies to mitigate its impact.
• Businesses Operating in Conflict Zones: Companies operating in areas affected by conflict need to be aware of the risks associated with aid diversion and develop strategies to manage these risks.
• Policymakers: Policymakers involved in shaping humanitarian aid policies and programs need to understand the complexities of aid diversion and develop policies that address its root causes.

Actionable Recommendations

To address the challenges posed by aid diversion, the following recommendations can be considered:

1. Enhance Transparency and Accountability: Humanitarian organizations should prioritize transparency in their operations and implement robust accountability mechanisms to prevent and detect aid diversion.
2. Contextualize Aid Programs: Aid programs should be designed with a deep understanding of the local context, including the dynamics of aid diversion and the needs of the affected populations.
3. Foster Collaboration: Collaboration between humanitarian organizations, local stakeholders, and governments can help mitigate the risks associated with aid diversion and improve the effectiveness of aid programs.
4. Invest in Technology: Leveraging technology, such as tracking systems and data analytics, can help monitor aid distribution and detect diversion.
5. Promote Policy Reforms: Policymakers should consider reforms that address the root causes of aid diversion and promote more sustainable and equitable aid delivery models.

Implementation Considerations

Implementing these recommendations will require careful consideration of several factors:

• Local Context: Understanding the local context and the complex dynamics of aid diversion is crucial for developing effective strategies.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Engaging with local stakeholders, governments, and other humanitarian organizations is essential for building trust and promoting collaboration.
• Capacity Building: Humanitarian organizations may need to invest in capacity building to develop the skills and expertise required to implement more effective aid programs.
• Risk Management: Businesses and humanitarian organizations need to develop robust risk management strategies to mitigate the risks associated with aid diversion.

Conclusion

The study by Barak-Corren and Boxman provides a critical examination of the challenges posed by aid diversion in conflict zones. The findings highlight the need for a fundamental shift in how aid is delivered and managed, prioritizing transparency, accountability, and collaboration. By understanding the dynamics of aid diversion and developing effective strategies to mitigate its impact, humanitarian organizations and businesses can improve the effectiveness of aid programs and promote more sustainable and equitable outcomes.

Summarize the Main Takeaways

The main takeaways from this study are:

• Aid diversion is a pervasive and complex issue in conflict zones, involving various mechanisms and stakeholders.
• The humanitarian community has normalized corrupt practices, undermining the effectiveness of aid programs.
• A fundamental shift in how aid is delivered and managed is required, prioritizing transparency, accountability, and collaboration.

Final Thoughts

The study's findings have significant implications for the future of humanitarian aid. As the humanitarian community faces an inflection point, with aid budgets being cut and donor nations growing reluctant to fund the current aid model, the need for reform is evident. By prioritizing transparency, accountability, and collaboration, humanitarian organizations and businesses can develop more effective aid programs that address the complex challenges posed by aid diversion. Ultimately, the goal should be to prevent aid from fueling conflicts and promote more sustainable and equitable outcomes for affected populations.