Concern is mounting within the UN that its response to the Syria crisis has exposed similar systemic failings to those it had vowed to eradicate after its widely condemned handling of the final stages of Sri Lanka’s civil war. Almost seven years after that conflict ended, and with the scale of human suffering in Syria eclipsing all other recent wars, the UN is struggling to end chronic starvation sieges across the country or deliver meaningful aid to areas most in need. The UN’s role in Syria has come into sharp focus since early January after the extent of one such siege in the town of Madaya was revealed. As many as 70 people are thought to have starved to death in the town between Damascus and the Lebanese border, and thousands more were left malnourished.

Food to sustain its remaining residents for one month was finally delivered several weeks later after an international outcry that shifted focus from the 6.5 million refugees who have fled Syria to the plight of the millions more who have stayed behind. Correspondence has since emerged revealing the UN had known about Madaya’s desperation since the siege was imposed by the Syrian regime last July but had been hesitant to highlight the crisis because of a fraught relationship with officials in Damascus. The handling of the Madaya siege has led some senior members of the organisation to urge an overhaul of its approach to other sieges across the country. They particularly call for a relaunch of its relationship with the Syrian government, which often dictates terms of access and issues visas to UN officials, as well as safeguarding local employees. Four senior UN members and two aid workers with extensive experience in the Middle East have told the Guardian that access to officials had been prioritised over access to areas in need, meaning aid goals had often not been met. 

The officials said significant areas of the organisation had been angered by prioritising Syrian sovereignty over responding to humanitarian abuses that, under international law, are seen as probable war crimes. Syrian officials have over the past year angrily denied that civilian populations are being starved or attacked by its military. Aid organisations in Syria, meanwhile, have listed 52 areas where sieges are ongoing, 49 of them imposed by the government, two by Islamist members of the opposition and one by Islamic State.  The UN members said a decision made by the Damascus arm of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha) to delete references to the words “siege” or “besieged” in a blueprint humanitarian document, had alarmed its members on the ground. “This was direct censorship and nothing less,” said one official. “It was done after consultation with Damascus but not with other UN stakeholders.” 

The document is expected to be showcased at an international donor conference in London on Thursday, which is intended to mark a fresh push for assistance to Syrians trapped on both sides of the conflict. In a letter to UN stakeholders, a senior Ocha official justified the amended wording, saying: “Throughout the discussions and as could be expected given developments on the ground in the last months, the government of Syria took a tougher line and sought to reopen discussions on a number of key areas where agreements had been reached last year [most notably reference to cross-border, national humanitarian partners and issues around protection]. “In the end, although I did agree to revised language and amendments in a number of areas in the interest of reaching an agreement, I believe we managed to hold the line and preserve the credibility and integrity of the document.” Syria Network, a group of aid organisations active in the country, wrote to the UN humanitarian relief chief, Stephen O’Brien, after the release of the revised plan, to demand assurances that aid delivery in Syria was not politicised.