Report on Private Military Contractor Operations in Gaza and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

A report has emerged concerning the operations of UG Solutions, a U.S.-based private military contractor (PMC), in Gaza. The firm was contracted by the Global Humanitarian Fund (GHF) to provide security for food aid distribution. However, allegations from whistleblowers within the company suggest actions that severely undermine key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Undermining SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The primary mission of the GHF, supported by UG Solutions, was to address critical food shortages in Gaza, a direct objective of SDG 2. While the GHF reports the provision of nearly 100 million meals, the methods employed for distribution have reportedly led to outcomes that are antithetical to the goal of ending hunger and ensuring access to food.

• Contractors have alleged they were instructed to use live ammunition for crowd control against unarmed civilians seeking food.
• The United Nations has described the GHF-led aid model as an “abomination” that delivers “nothing but starvation and gunfire.”
• Reports indicate that over 1,000 Gazans have been killed near or at GHF distribution centers since May, directly impeding safe access to essential nutrition.

These events transform a humanitarian effort into a direct threat to life, fundamentally violating the principles of SDG 2, which aims to ensure safe and sustainable access to food for all.

Violations of SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The controversy surrounding UG Solutions highlights a significant failure in promoting peace, ensuring justice, and building effective, accountable institutions as outlined in SDG 16. The operational model and the subsequent allegations point to a breakdown in legal and ethical oversight.

• The use of PMCs in a humanitarian space, allegedly engaging in violent acts against civilians, erodes peace and security.
• Allegations of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) also shooting at unarmed civilians at these sites further compound the issue of violence and lack of accountability.
• UG Solutions operates under contract to a foreign entity (GHF), not a U.S. government agency, placing its actions in a legal gray area and challenging institutional accountability.
• The vehement denials by UG Solutions, the GHF, and the IDF in the face of whistleblower testimony create a crisis of justice and transparency.

This lack of regulation and accountability for non-state armed actors undermines the rule of law and the establishment of peaceful societies, which are core targets of SDG 16.

Defining Mercenary Activity in the Context of International Norms

The case of UG Solutions necessitates an examination of its classification under international law, which is central to the “Strong Institutions” component of SDG 16. The United Nations provides six criteria to define a mercenary. An individual is considered a mercenary if they meet the following conditions:

1. Is specially recruited to fight in an armed conflict.
2. Directly participates in the hostilities.
3. Is primarily motivated by private gain.
4. Is not a national of a party to the conflict.
5. Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict.
6. Has not been sent by a state on official duty.

Analysis suggests that UG Solutions, as a U.S.-based company working for a non-U.S. entity in the Gaza conflict without an official U.S. government mandate, meets all six criteria. This distinguishes it from past PMCs like Blackwater, which operated under U.S. State Department contracts, and state-sponsored groups like Wagner. This evolution represents a new form of mercenary operation that challenges existing international legal frameworks.

The Failure of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The collaboration between the Global Humanitarian Fund and UG Solutions serves as a cautionary example regarding SDG 17. While partnerships are essential for achieving the SDGs, this case demonstrates the potential for poorly regulated collaborations to produce counterproductive and harmful results.

• The partnership’s stated humanitarian goal is overshadowed by allegations of extreme violence.
• The model has been condemned by the UN, indicating a fracture in international cooperation and a departure from established best practices for humanitarian aid.
• It raises critical questions about the ethical responsibilities and oversight required when private sector entities, particularly armed contractors, are engaged to achieve development and humanitarian objectives.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability and Regulation

The operations of UG Solutions in Gaza represent a serious challenge to the global commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals. The reported actions have actively undermined efforts to achieve Zero Hunger (SDG 2) while exemplifying a breakdown in Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16). The nature of the partnership calls into question the ethical application of SDG 17.

This situation underscores an urgent need to address the expanding role of PMCs. To uphold the principles of the SDGs, the following actions are necessary:

• Establish clear international and national regulations for the private military industry to prevent scope creep into mercenary work.
• Conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the allegations of violence at GHF aid sites to ensure accountability and justice.
• Re-evaluate humanitarian partnership models to ensure that they prioritize civilian safety and are fully aligned with international humanitarian law and the core tenets of the SDGs.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses several interconnected issues, primarily focusing on humanitarian aid, conflict, and the role of private actors, which directly relate to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  This goal is central to the article, as the entire context is the distribution of food aid in Gaza. The article revolves around the efforts of the Global Humanitarian Fund (GHF) to provide meals to a civilian population facing “starvation” and the violent, controversial methods used at these food distribution sites.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is addressed through the article’s extensive discussion of violence against civilians, the lack of accountability for Private Military Contractors (PMCs), and the legal and ethical “gray area” in which they operate. The text highlights the failure to protect civilians and the absence of effective regulation and justice, mentioning that “1000 Gazans who have been killed” and that politicians “refus[e] to acknowledge, let alone regulate, the private companies working as military proxies.”

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article describes a multi-stakeholder partnership involving a private humanitarian fund (GHF), a U.S.-based private military contractor (UG Solutions), and funding from the U.S. State Department to deliver aid. However, it serves as a case study of a dysfunctional partnership, which the UN calls an “abomination,” demonstrating the challenges and negative consequences when partnerships are not effective, transparent, or aligned with humanitarian principles.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
     
     Explanation: The article’s core subject is the attempt to provide food to “unarmed civilians seeking food” in Gaza, a population in a highly vulnerable situation due to conflict. The GHF’s mission to provide “nearly 100 million meals” directly relates to this target, while the UN’s claim that the model “provides nothing but starvation” highlights the failure to achieve it.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly details the failure to meet this target by reporting on the use of “live ammunition for crowd control,” the “shooting and shelling [of] unarmed civilians,” and the resulting deaths of “1000 Gazans… near or at the GHF centers since May.”
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
     
     Explanation: The article discusses how PMCs operate in a “gray area between war fighters and private civilians,” and the author’s call to “define” and “regulate” their work points to a lack of rule of law and accountability for their actions. The text suggests these entities operate without proper legal oversight.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article critiques the lack of transparency and accountability in the use of PMCs as “military proxies.” The author notes that UG Solutions is “working for an organization unaffiliated with the U.S. government,” making oversight difficult and highlighting a failure of institutional accountability.

3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.
     
     Explanation: The arrangement between the GHF, UG Solutions, and their funders is a public-private partnership aimed at humanitarian delivery. However, the article analyzes it as an example of an ineffective and harmful partnership, where “whistleblowers have come forward to say that they have been engaging in aggressive offensive tactics against an unarmed population.” This serves as a cautionary example of the risks involved in such partnerships without proper oversight.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several explicit and implicit indicators that can be used to measure progress (or lack thereof) towards the identified targets:

1. Indicators for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

   • Indicator for Target 2.1: The article mentions that GHF “provided nearly 100 million meals to Gaza.” This is a quantitative output indicator. However, its effectiveness is contradicted by the UN’s assessment that the operation provides “nothing but starvation,” which implies a high prevalence of food insecurity (Indicator 2.1.2).

2. Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   • Indicator for Target 16.1: The article provides a direct quantitative indicator for conflict-related deaths (Indicator 16.1.2) by stating, “1000 Gazans who have been killed near or at the GHF centers since May.” It also provides qualitative indicators of violence through descriptions of “shooting and shelling unarmed civilians” and the use of “live ammunition.”
   • Indicator for Target 16.3: The lack of a legal framework to regulate PMCs, as described by the author’s call to “define it” and “regulate” the industry, serves as a qualitative indicator of a weak rule of law concerning these actors.

3. Indicators for SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

   • Indicator for Target 17.17: The existence of the partnership itself (GHF, UG Solutions, U.S. funding) is an indicator of a multi-stakeholder initiative. The negative outcomes reported—civilian deaths and accusations of “abusive measures”—serve as critical performance indicators demonstrating the partnership’s failure to operate effectively and ethically.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: responsiblestatecraft.org