Not sure that these populations are in much of a place to resist militias and rebel groups in the first place -- tho this article from Uganda sheds an interesting light on vigilante justice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/africa/19congo.html?ref=world

MBK

Well, I didn't mean just Somalia, where you're definitely right.

No we should send even more aid. The only way to change the attitudes over there is to prove that the west cares and is willing to help the mothers, sisters and children of the men who would otherwise join militia's. Aid without conditions. Aid without pressure to conform to the West's ideals. Aid without prejudice. When these "bad" men see that there is hope through cooperation and through the development of viable infrastructure for water, electricity, and social supports they will reconsider their methods. Winning the hearts and minds of the family and community must be the first goal.

Michael Kleinman,

i feel your good heart, but your question is based on a false dichotomy -- this issue is not the ratio of food aid that ends up with militia compared with victims --  The issue is how to increase the AMOUNT of food aid to the victims -- period -- regardless. The militia is not starving (like the victims) -- the militia would be relatively unaffected by cutting off all food aid. But even more starving victims will die if food aid is cut off.  A high percentage of stolen food aid (even 90% or more) is just the very high but necessary philanthropical price of delivering whatever amount of food aid to the victims we possibly can. We should focus on increasing the AMOUNT of food aid that gets to the starving victims -- period.

You are wrong.

Sadly, I'm not at all surprised that little aid has gotten to the starving people of Somalia and has ended up in the hands of thugs and militia.  It isn't the first country to have this happen.  The source of the problem must be dealt with.  The reason for people starving has to be ended.  Sending even more food to Somalia is only a band-aid solution. 

The world is changing very fast and new realities need to be acknowledged.

www.marketskeptics.com/2009/02/2009-global-food-catastrophe.html

We must be wise in our decision making and not play into the hands of those who will enslave and kill and become partners with them by virtue of our aid.

When there is not enough for everyone a line must be drawn somewhere. A good place to begin drawing is where evil men steal aid from those for whom it was intended.

A happy answer? NO. But you are right Michael.

This is like a flashback in time.  This is exactly what was happening in Somalia before Blackhawk Down.  The people we were fighting were intercepting/stealing the food an money.

No, the militias may not be starving.  But they are selling the food to those who are at unreasonable prices, and using their monopoly on food, guns, and other goods brought into the country to control the entire population.  They create a black market for aid which is supposed to be going to the poor to begin with.

Plus, how many tax payers and/or donators would be happy to know where their money is going right now?

http://thezspot.today.com

The US is planning to give the Palestinians about $900 million to rebuild the Gaza Strip after it was bombed by Israel after militants/Hamas repeated bombed Israel for months. No doubt Hamas will get part of the money to continue attacking Israel.
IMO this is a stupid waste of taxpayer money because the Palestinian people are most probably willing to endure the losses to hurt Israel.  We are the only losers, and the Palestinians must think we're stupid too.

From a friend working on Somali issues:

The relationship between food aid and Somalia is more complicated than just trying to get it past the bad guys to those in need.  However, it is not an issue that is widely talked about, here, as it touches on uncomfortable truths about the problematic nature of the international community's relationship to Somalia.  Let's draw out the analysis and see where it takes us.

There are several sets of aid diversions in Somalia.  For convenience, I have disaggregated them into three types:

1-Conflict diversion that supports actors involved in a power struggle (e.g. TFG versus the al Shabaab).

2-Systemic diversion that supports an already pre-existing power arrangement and benefits individuals within it. (e.g. the former Siad Barre regime and its cronies)

3-Opportunistic diversion through capture or extortion. (e.g. food taken at distribution sites or checkpoints)

To some degree there can be overlaps between these three categories:

1-Conflict diversion enriches warring parties and supports their war aims and fuels a war economy.

2-Systemic diversion enriches predatory administrations and can also fuel a war economy.

3-Opportunistic diversion is less systematic but enriches freelancers, militias, and warlords, and also fuels the war economy.

Diverted food is no good to these actors, unless they can sell it, which is where their activities intersect with commercial interests and cycles into the war economy.

So basically, food aid diversion is a complex set of relationships within the wider context of a war economy, which enriches, robs, and kills in a self-serving cycle of exploitation.

The question of where to draw the line assumes that the benefit of the remaining food getting through outweighs the negative impact of the food that has been diverted. I know of no analysis of this issue (if you can find one, then please send to me).  50% loss as criteria for cut-off is arbitrary as we don't know the impact of the food getting through - maybe it could be higher or lower if we could weigh the benefits, but we don't know.  

Delivery of food in the context of a conflict and a war economy is always a risky proposition and demands the highest understanding and sensitivity.  If these attributes are missing (or food is deliberately being misappropriated), then food risks being used as a weapon or as fuel for a war economy.

I think it is fair to say that delivery of food (or any other high value or high volume asset into Somalia) risks being misused and probably has been to varying degrees.  In Somalia in the late 80's and early 90's before the collapse of the state, food aid was systematically plundered by the National Refugee Commission and its cronies with the full knowledge of the international community.  There was a complicated political arrangement that tolerated this within a Cold War context.

These days, the situation is different but complex political relationships still exist in which food is just one of the many ways of discharging patronage.  It is also another way for the international community to say that it is helping Somalis, and nobody wants to be accused of shutting off food if there is high malnutrition.  Within a "do less harm" analysis, then the issue is whether by shoveling food at the problem we are also shoveling it into the furnace of the war economy to such a degree that it ends up killing more than it is saving.  Like I said a solid analysis of this issue has not been done to my knowledge.

So, a careful analysis needs to be done as opposed to making decisions based upon an gut feeling that something is wrong. 

Thanks for raising an issues that has a lot of taboos around it.

A few thoughts:

- Chris - more aid isn't going to change anyone's mind, or at least not in the Shabab, and similar insurgent groups. Any group willing to stone a thirteen year-old girl to death isn't going to be reformed by seeing hope through cooperation and development.  Believing otherwise is wishful thinking.

- Garold - I agree that the main issue is how to increase the amount of food that gets to those who need it most.  That said, food stolen by militias is not simply a "philanthropic" price -- as the post above makes clear, the risk is that such misappropriated food aid actually spurs further conflict; that it creates actual harms that threaten to erase any positive impact.  Or, put another way (and granted, this is rather simplified) -- would you support sending food aid if most of it ended up in the hands of a militia which then sold it, allowing them to finance further attacks against civilians?

Roan - fine fighting words, and please suggest other alternatives.  Would love to hear.  I await your suggestions.
 

-

Did you see Dambisa Movo in the Sunday NY Times of 2/22/09? She is the Head of Economic Research and Strategy for Sub-Saharan Africa at Goldman Sachs, where she has worked for the past eight years. Dambisa completed a PhD in Economics at Oxford University and holds a Masters from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. In addition, she holds a BSc in Chemistry and an MBA in Finance from American University in Washington D.C.. Dambisa Moyo was born and raised in Lusaka, Zambia. She will release her book "Dead Aid" which should cause quite a stir, and get her bookings on all the major news shows, Sunday morning news shows, and Oprah. She is a very qualified African speaking about African problems. Not a "Bono" who is sending money blindly into Africa. At a fund raiser in Switzerland, she reported that she was the only African in the room.
In "Dead Aid" she will argue that the Western world shut off aid to the countries of Africa. That the politicians, presidents, prime ministers, feel no responsibility towards their populations as the money comes from outside sources. Why work for the peasant when Washington provides your wealth?
Isn't this exactly the same problem with USA? People that don't work because they can be feed and housed by the government?
Dambisa also cites China as an example of a country turned around. 40 years ago China was poorer than many African countries. Today, many Chinese live with American standards. How did this happen without a leadership committed to improving its own situation. More "aid" money has poured into Africa over the past 40 years than China ever saw. You have not seen celebritiescrying over China. No one cared if the Chinese went hungry. Yet trillions have poured into African countries with all of it being carted away by dictators, and presidents.
What does she suggest be done to help? Micro finance, give people jobs. Loan a start up business which can be done for as little as $25.00. You can make a loan at www.kiva.org to a single person in Africa dreaming of say owning their own sewing machine to turn out their own "clothing line" to sell in market, to feed themselves and not rely on Western aid.
Time to let Africa sink or swim on its own.
Spartan Caver a Yellow Dog Democrat.

Bryant -- interesting point, tho I'd differentiate between humanitarian aid and development aid.  I'm not convinced, mind you, but looking forward to seeing the book.

Also, just on the factual accuracy side of things -- billions of dollars have been spent on Africa, but nowhere near a trillion dollars, not even within an order of magnitude. 

Michael,
Thanks for your kind-hearted and thoughtful response.
As your "friend working on Somali issues" said, "a careful analysis needs to be done as opposed to making decisions based upon an gut feeling that something is wrong". Absent such a factually compelling analylsis that the very next (diverted) food aid dollar would with very high probability kill more victims than it saves --- I believe we must continue to error on the side of compassion as best we can know it in each moment (as circumstances change) -- and not concede compassionate action to potential but unproven risks. That said, we must always try to See Clearly, Know What Is, and Act Unhesitatingly in the face of suffering even when the facts and circumstances can not be known sufficiently to give confidence. So in all cases, i believe we should consider not only the aggregate consequences of our actions on those who suffer, but also the suffering of each individual affected by the choices made by those of us who have the luxury of making choices. Meanwhile, we must continue to work (hard against the very difficult circumstances described here by others) to reduce the amount of diversion and the violence --  so that eventually there may be opportunities for microfinance, etc. (Be well and safe)

There is no doubt that aid is being siphoned off by militias in Somalia. Last month, the Danish head of UNICEF Somlia said that they pay ca 5.000 USD pr truck of food to the militias for access. This is cash, and not just diverted food aid. So Michael you are right in raising the point. The head of UNICEF also acknowledged this, saying that the aid community now has become part of the problem. I would link to the article,, but it is in Danish.
I think the whole debate on where to draw the line springs from a misguided notion of relief as being neutral; the aim of humanitarian assistance is to change social circumstances, which is essentially a political endavour. I think humanitarian agencies should start seeing themselves as a-political actors rather than neutral, and recognise the political consequences of their work. This might involve cutting off aid to Somalia in an effort to do less harm.
Moyo also talks about cutting off aid, but she is specifically talking about government aid, and not charity work or urgent humanitarian assistance. So even though her book is wonderfully provocative, her argument is not applicable in this debate. But she does say that Africa has received aid in excess of 1 trillion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/19/dambisa-moyo-dead-aid-africa)
Cheers,Jakob

Jakob -- thanks for the comment, and the clarification.  And I do agree that we need to do a much better job trying to understand the political consequences of our actions, whether we choose to see ourselves as a-political or not

Bryant -- apologies for getting the facts wrong about the funding flows in my previous comment

Garold -- thanks very much for your comment

Given that the governments/militias are stealing the food for sale and for themselves, depriving the victims of the resources.

Don't send food, don't give them hostages - destabilize the power structure through economic and trade sanctions.  I would say arm the victims, if they want to fight - but that escalates the theater.  The idea is to force the "bad guys" to consume their technology and resources.  As the population weakens so does their power....
....actually this recession might give your humanitarian aid efforts an opportunity.

Oh, any such actions should be done by the international community - not this countries empire building.

While I agree that food aid will certainly help people in the short term, I feel that a lot of times people throw money or throw aid at these massive problems, which ends up doing little good. I think that there needs to be more thought about how to put those resources to better use to resolve the bigger issues of changing mindsets, repairing corrupt governments, and putting in place infrastructure that will help a country develop.

To be honest, I wish that the UN had a stronger authority in international matters and a UN army to intervene in matters of prolonged civil wars, corrupt governments, genocides, etc. And while there is the issue of sovereignty, I believe that in such extreme cases that issue should be sidestepped to restore peace and prevent the loss of lives.

You are, unfortunately, quite correct in your view.