As Syrian civilians starved to death, U.N. officials let the government in Damascus alter its master plan for saving lives.
ISTANBUL — Its title is prosaic and its content dry, but the stark
statistics in the U.N.’s annual summary of relief programs tell the
story of Syria’s humanitarian nightmare. This is a country on life
support: 13.6 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance,
Syrians are being displaced at a rate of 50 families per hour every day,
and at least 1 million people in displaced persons camps receive no
international aid.
But to close readers of the
U.N. Humanitarian Response Plan,
which was published on Dec. 29, the big surprise was what the 64-page
document failed to mention. The United Nations, after consulting the
Syrian government, altered dozens of passages and omitted pertinent
information to paint the government of Bashar al-Assad in a more
favorable light.
By comparing the final document to an earlier draft that was obtained by
Foreign Policy,
it is evident that 10 references to “sieged” or “besieged” areas, such
as that in Madaya — the town in southwestern Syria that saw 23 people
die of starvation over several months before the arrival of a U.N. aid
convoy in mid-January — were removed. Gone was any mention of the
program to clear mines and unexploded ordnance, such as the “barrel
bombs” the regime drops indiscriminately on populated areas. Gone were
all mentions of Syrian relief groups that shepherd the aid to civilians
in rebel-held areas.
The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
indicated that the alterations were made at the behest of the Syrian
government.
“It is standard procedure in each country for the UN to consult with the
government of the country,” wrote Linda Tom, an OCHA spokeswoman, when
asked about the deletion of references to “siege” or “besieged.” Amanda
Pitt, OCHA’s chief spokeswoman, affirmed that point. “I assume it was
done in consultation with a range of partners including the Government,
as is normal practice,” she said in an email to
FP.
OCHA declined to make any senior official available for an interview or to respond to further questions.
BY JANUARY 27, 2016