On
UNICEF's Syria
Death Count, UN
Says It's Not
on Ground,
Cites Ban in
GA
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 5 --
UNICEF on
August 31 and
September 2
offered Syria
casualty
figures --
1600 killed in
a week -- that
it refused to
explain,
but which went
out all over
the world.
The
figures
were in fact
derived, Inner
City Press persisted
and on
September 3
learned,
from the media
itself.
At
UN
headquarters on
September 5,
Inner City
Press asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
about it:
Inner
City Press: on
Friday, UNICEF
said there had
been 1,600
people killed
in the
previous week,
the highest
week so far;
and then when
asked, UNICEF
said, about
the basis of
the figures,
they said,
'ask OCHA.' So
I did ask
OCHA, and they
said it’s
based on
UNICEF’s
monitoring of
media reports.
The numbers
are high,
definitely.
But the UN’s
numbers, are
they based on
media reports,
or are they
based on the
Syrian
Observatory?
What’s the UN
standard for
putting in a
UNICEF report
that’s on
ReliefWeb,
which was
announced in
Geneva as a
solid
number?
Is it really
just the UN
reporting to
the media what
the media
already
reported?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
Well, I think
you need to
ask UNICEF
precisely on
their
sourcing.
Let me simply
say that it’s
obvious that
the United
Nations does
not have the
kind of
presence on
the ground
that would be
needed if it
would be
possible at
all to
establish
accurate
figures.
I think that’s
obvious to
everybody.
It’s also
obvious that
there are many
people who are
monitoring
what’s
happening
inside Syria
and are
providing
figures which
obviously need
to be treated
with
appropriate
caution.
I think you
are absolutely
right that the
figures are
high. We heard
the
Secretary-General
and Mr.
[Lakhdar]
Brahimi say
this in the
General
Assembly just
yesterday.
The tragedy is
that those
numbers
continue to
climb, and yet
it’s almost
got to the
point where it
does not
create the
waves in the
media that it
should do,
because it has
become almost
grotesquely
commonplace.
And that’s
what the focus
should be
on.
That’s where
we need to
focus our
efforts to try
to stem the
bloodshed and
move things
onto a
political
track.
To some, even
inside UNICEF,
it also seems
important that
the numbers
announced by
the UN be
credible, or
at least that
their sourcing
be disclosed
as the same
time they are
announced. The
worst is the
mis-direction
in which
UNICEF
engaged,
saying "call
OCHA" when
they weren't
OCHA's numbers
at all.
After UNICEF's
Patrick
McCormick was
quoted that "at
least 1,600
people were
killed in
Syria last
week" and
Reuters
said he was
"citing a U.N.
document,"
Inner City
Press early on
September 2 asked
McCormick,
which
document? And
how was the
data collected?
McCormick
replied to
Inner City
Press, "call
OCHA" -- the
UN's Office
for the
Coordination
of
Humanitarian
Affairs.
This seemed
strange
anyway: in
2009 OCHA
refused to
release very
specific
casualty
figures --
2,683 --
it had
collected in
Sri Lanka.
At the time,
the UN told
Inner City
Press it is not in the
business of
counting the
dead --
Inner City
Press thought
and thinks the
UN should at
least do this,
where it can.
But in a
credible and
transparent
way.
In this case,
Inner City
Press' initial
questioning
was picked up
by the UK
Guardian,
as was the
above-quoted
OCHA response.
Still
UNICEF's
number
continues to
proliferate. Voice
of America at
2 pm on
September 2
dutifully
quoted
McCormick on
the numbers
for UNICEF,
headed by
Anthony Lake.
Click
here for
Washington
Post;
UNICEF's
one-week 1600
death count
has since been
in, among
others,
Canada's big
newspapers,
GlobalPost,
IBT, Slate,
the Huffington
Post, the Daily
Beast -
and in the
UN's host
city, New York
Post and New
York Daily
News.
Since then,
the Jamaica
Observer, VOA-affiliated
Radio Free
Europe / Radio
Liberty,
San Francisco
Chronicle,
Pittsburgh
Post Gazette,
Detroit Free
Press, South
China Morning
Post, and
more.
More
doubts should
have been
raised: in
Syria in 2012,
the UN's
mission has
left after UN
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous said
that even
observers in
armored cars
can't get
around. How
would OCHA
have collected
figures of the
type it
refused to
release in Sri
Lanka in 2009,
and why would
it (well,
UNICEF)
release them
about Syria in
2012?
Despite
OCHA's belated
response to
Inner City
Press after
UNICEF's, in
context,
deception
play, will
this be like
the Inner City
Press exposed
but never
corrected claim
that new UN
envoy Lakhdar
Brahimi is a
"Nobel Peace
laureate"?
Click here for
that. And
watch this
site.
, 
