I’ve spent much of my career as a journalist covering international responses to humanitarian crises. These are often crises far from the radar of Western media. Think: Central African Republic, Southern Madagascar, Cameroon, Myanmar, and on and on. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that a constellation of United Nations entities and international NGOs tasked with responding to disasters have gotten pretty good at efficiently providing humanitarian relief in an emergency. When disaster strikes, a robust system snaps into action. These are professionals who work in tough settings with limited resources.
Ask any professional humanitarian worker, and they will tell you that airdrops are a terrible way to deliver aid. For one, they are massively expensive. The sheer cost often limits the amount of aid that can be delivered. Even if costs were not a factor, in terms of volume, the amount of aid that can be airdropped is a fraction of other methods of delivery. Adding to this inefficiency is that after the aid is dropped, there’s often no good way to get the aid to the people who need it the most. Distribution can be haphazard.
I recall a conversation with a World Food Programme spokesperson around 2017, in the midst of a food emergency in South Sudan. Parts of the country were experiencing catastrophic levels of food insecurity, with some more remote communities crossing the famine threshold. But it was the rainy season, and roads to these far-flung villages were impassable. The WFP spokesperson was almost apologetic that they had to resort to airdrops to fight the famine, but their hands were tied. Geography made any other method of aid delivery impossible.
In Gaza, the problem is not geography but politics.
Speaking to reporters today, President Biden announced that the US would commence “in the coming days” with airdrops of humanitarian supplies into Gaza. Jordan has been doing limited airdrops for the past few weeks, and now the United States will do so as well.
If one’s goal is to prevent an imminent famine starvation and further immiseration of stranded Gazans, this strategy makes no sense. “Air drops will not be effective in blunting the humanitarian crises in Gaza,” former head of USAID operations in Gaza Dave Harden said on Twitter/X. “Air drops are inefficient, expensive, dangerous, and only helpful when there are no other delivery options.”
Meanwhile, there are hundreds of trucks lined up with food and supplies waiting to get into Gaza, but are being prevented from doing so by Israeli authorities. “People in Gaza risk dying of hunger just miles from trucks filled with food,” WFP Executive Director Cindy McCain said last month.
While dropping humanitarian supplies from the skies over Gaza makes little sense from a humanitarian perspective, the politics of this are pretty clear. The Biden administration would rather opt for an inefficient way to deliver aid than take meaningful steps to compel Israel to allow more aid through border crossings. “Air drops are primarily for the Biden administration’s benefit - to paper over a massive policy failure,” said Harden.
A frequent Global Dispatches podcast guest Scott Paul of Oxfam agrees. "Oxfam does not support US airdrops to Gaza, which would mostly serve to relieve the guilty consciences of senior US officials whose policies are contributing to the ongoing atrocities and risk of famine in Gaza.”
To the broader public, airdrops may seem like a quick fix. However, those who dedicate their lives and careers to responding to humanitarian emergencies understand that airdrops in the context of Gaza serve as a cruel fig leaf. While they may provide political cover for the Biden administration, they will do little to prevent an imminent famine