>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
But Benz says that image collapses once basic questions are asked.
He has focused particular attention on USAID-linked fundraising efforts tied to Somalia during the early 1990s. One concert, according to claims circulating among researchers who track USAID operations, raised roughly $100 million for hunger relief.
Where did that money go?
Critics allege that large portions of the funds never reached starving civilians. Instead, they claim the money flowed through shadowy channels involving CIA-backed warlords and weapons purchases.
Those allegations have never been fully resolved, and Benz says the lack of transparency is the real story.
Somalia, USAID, and the Military Pipeline
In December 1992, President George H.W. Bush sent 28,000 U.S. troops into Somalia under a humanitarian banner. The mission was sold to Americans as “God’s work,” a moral effort to save lives and protect aid deliveries.
At the same time, mass Somali immigration to the United States began, tied to efforts to rebuild an exiled government after civil war.
Benz describes a familiar operational pattern. Aid trucks that cannot be inspected because “the food will spoil.” Money routed through layers of contractors and middlemen. Emotional public campaigns up front, while the real activity stays buried behind bureaucracy and secrecy.
“What gets sold as compassion,” Benz argues, “functions as a delivery system for covert action.”
Intelligence Agencies and Humanitarian Fronts
History backs up the concern.
From the 1960s through the early 1970s, USAID worked closely with the CIA’s Office of Public Safety. That program was accused of training foreign police forces in abusive interrogation methods. Congress shut it down in 1973 after a Senate report concluded the allegations were harming America’s reputation, whether proven or not.
Aid groups have also been used as intelligence covers elsewhere. The Pentagon once funded Christian NGOs that unknowingly served as fronts for espionage operations in North Korea, moving equipment under the guise of humanitarian work.
Sam Worthington of InterAction, which represents nearly 200 American NGOs, warned that using aid workers as spies endangers legitimate humanitarian efforts worldwide.
Bono’s Establishment Ties Raise Eyebrows
Then there is Bono himself.
Despite cultivating an image as an anti-establishment Irish rebel, he accepted an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II in 2007.
Irish officials are legally barred from accepting such honors. Many Irish citizens have refused them on principle for decades. Bono did not.
To critics, it symbolized a deeper contradiction. Songs about peace and rebellion paired with praise and honors from the very power structures he claims to oppose.
Even George W. Bush once told Bono he thought the singer “came right out of the CIA.”
That was not a fringe blogger talking. It was a sitting U.S. president.
USAID’s Political Footprint Comes Into Focus
More recent disclosures have intensified scrutiny of USAID’s role in global politics.
WikiLeaks cables revealed U.S. strategies aimed at destabilizing Venezuela by “penetrating Chavez’s political base” and “dividing Chavismo.” USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives helped fund opposition groups tied to those efforts.
Russia expelled USAID in 2012, with Vladimir Putin accusing the agency of using NGOs to interfere in domestic politics. Kenya has made similar claims, alleging USAID-funded activists organized anti-government protests.
The Celebrity Humanitarian Industrial Complex
Benz says the pattern is clear.
Celebrities supply the fame and emotion. NGOs provide infrastructure and plausible deniability. Intelligence and political actors shape outcomes behind the scenes.
The public, meanwhile, is encouraged to believe it is all driven by love and generosity.
Decades later, basic questions about where Somalia relief money went remain unanswered. Bono, the global humanitarian icon, walks away with elite honors and universal praise.
For Americans willing to look past the glossy PR, Benz’s work suggests Hollywood humanitarianism deserves far more skepticism than it has ever received.
