Assad brings polio back to Syria

Polio, one of the most feared diseases, back in Syria

One more of the countless consequences of the continued rule of Syrian President Bashar Assad and its sanction by the international community is the confirmed outbreak of polio cases, the first in Syria in 14 years.

It is sad that polio, once one of the most feared diseases that paralyzed thousands of children every year, is back and could spread throughout the region due to the large amount of movement by Syrians fleeing their country.

In 2013, only three countries -- Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan -- remain polio-endemic, down from more than 125 in 1988.

Will Syria now be added to this list?

The map before the confirmed cases in Syria (WHO)

The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a surveillance alert for the region to “actively search for additional potential cases.” It also recommends all travellers to and from polio-infected areas be fully vaccinated.

It is all the more heartbreaking given that polio cases in Syria emerged as World Polio Day was being celebrated on October 24.

On Tuesday (October 29), WHO stated, “Following reports of a cluster of 22 acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) cases on October 17 in Syria, wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) has been isolated from 10 of the cases under investigation.”

It said most of the victims are very young -- below two years of age -- and were un- or under-immunized. Estimated immunization rates in Syria declined from 91 percent in 2010 to 68 percent in 2012.

Even before this laboratory confirmation, health authorities in Syria and neighboring countries had begun planning and implementing a comprehensive outbreak response, WHO says. On October 24, an already-planned large-scale supplementary immunization activity (SIA) was launched in Syria to vaccinate 1.6 million children against polio, measles, mumps and rubella, in both government-controlled and rebel areas.

Implementation of an SIA in Deir ez-Zor province commenced promptly when the first “hot cases” were reported.

WHO expects the larger-scale outbreak response across Syria and neighboring countries to begin in early November and to last at least six to eight months -- depending on the area and based on evolving epidemiology.

It warns: “Given the current situation in Syria, frequent population movements across the region and subnational immunity gaps in key areas, the risk of further international spread of wild poliovirus type 1 across the region is considered to be high.”

A single confirmed case of polio paralysis is evidence of an epidemic

Polio is a crippling and potentially fatal infectious disease. There is no cure, but there are safe and effective vaccines. The strategy to eradicate polio is therefore based on preventing infection by immunizing every child until transmission stops and the world is polio-free.

Polio (poliomyelitis) is a highly infectious disease caused by a virus. It invades the nervous system and can cause irreversible paralysis in a matter of hours.

Polio can strike at any age, but it mainly affects children under five years old. It is spread through person-to-person contact.

When a child is infected with wild poliovirus, the virus enters the body through the mouth and multiplies in the intestine. It is then shed into the environment through the faeces where it can spread rapidly through a community, especially in situations of poor hygiene and sanitation. If a sufficient number of children are fully immunized against polio, the virus is unable to find susceptible children to infect, and dies out.

Most people infected with the poliovirus have no signs of illness and are never aware they have been infected. These symptomless people carry the virus in their intestines and can “silently” spread the infection to thousands of others before the first case of polio paralysis emerges.

For this reason, WHO considers a single confirmed case of polio paralysis to be evidence of an epidemic --particularly in countries where very few cases occur.

Polio can be prevented through immunization. Polio vaccine, given multiple times, almost always protects a child for life.

In 1988, when the Global Polio Eradication Initiative began, polio paralyzed more than 1,000 children worldwide every day. Since then, 2.5 billion children have been immunized against polio thanks to the cooperation of more than 200 countries and 20 million volunteers, backed by an international investment of more than $8 billion.

WHO, in partnership with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the largest private-public partnership for health, has reduced polio by 99%. Polio now survives only among the world's poorest and most marginalized communities, where it stalks the most vulnerable children. The Initiative's goal is to reach every last child with polio vaccine and ensure a polio-free world for future generations.

The oral polio vaccine costs as little as 11 U.S. cents

There are two forms of vaccine available to ward off polio - oral polio vaccine (OPV) and inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Because OPV is an oral vaccine, it can be administered by anyone, even volunteers. One dose of OPV can cost as little as 11 U.S. cents.

According to WHO, polio cases have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases then, to 223 reported cases in 2012. The reduction is the result of the global effort to eradicate the disease.

But it points out that as long as a single child remains infected, children in all countries are at risk of contracting polio. Failure to eradicate polio from these last remaining strongholds could result in as many as 200,000 new cases every year, within 10 years, all over the world.

May the children of Syria be protected from this disease.

Landmark UNSC vote keeps Assad in place

The Security Council votes on Friday (UN photo by Amanda Voisard)

In a landmark move, the Security Council on Friday evening endorsed the expeditious destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons program, with inspections to begin by Tuesday (October 1). It agreed that in the event of non-compliance, it would impose “Chapter VII” measures.

This follows the international outrage caused by the use of chemical weapons on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, as concluded by a United Nations investigation team.

But the war in Syria has been raging since March 2011 through the use of conventional weapons. It was going on before August 21 and continues still.

More than 100,000 people have been killed. One out of every three Syrians is displaced. One out of every three Syrians needs humanitarian assistance. The medical system has collapsed. And third of Syria is in rubble because conventional weapons are being used indiscriminately every day.

Will the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, his supporters and backers be deterred from continuing to use conventional weapons?

By keeping the regime untouched, does Assad now have license to kill through conventional weapons?

Unanimously adopting Resolution 2118 (2013), the 15-member Security Council determined that the use of chemical weapons anywhere constituted a threat to international peace and security. It called for the full implementation of the September 27 decision of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which contains special procedures for the expeditious and verifiable destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons.

Specifically, the Council prohibited Syria from using, developing, producing, otherwise acquiring, stockpiling or retaining chemical weapons, or transferring them to other States or non-State actors. It underscored also that no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer such weapons.

Also, Syria should comply with all aspects of the OPCW decision, notably by accepting personnel designated by OPCW or the UN and providing them with immediate and unfettered access to -- and the right to inspect -- any and all chemical weapons sites.

Further, the Council decided to regularly review Syria’s implementation of the OPCW Executive Council decision and the present resolution, requesting the OPCW Director-General, through the Secretary-General, to report to it within 30 days and every month thereafter.

Fully endorsing the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, the Council called for the convening, as soon as possible, of an international conference on Syria to implement that Communiqué.

Following is the full text of Security Council Resolution 2118 (2013):

“The Security Council,

“Recalling the Statements of its President of 3 August 2011, 21 March 2012, 5 April 2012, and its resolutions 1540 (2004), 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012),

“Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic,

“Reaffirming that the proliferation of chemical weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

“Recalling that the Syrian Arab Republic on 22 November 1968 acceded to the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925,

“Noting that on 14 September 2013, the Syrian Arab Republic deposited with the Secretary-General its instrument of accession to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (Convention) and declared that it shall comply with its stipulations and observe them faithfully and sincerely, applying the Convention provisionally pending its entry into force for the Syrian Arab Republic,

“Welcoming the establishment by the Secretary-General of the United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic (the Mission) pursuant to General Assembly resolution 42/37 C (1987) of 30 November 1987, and reaffirmed by resolution 620 (1988) of 26 August 1988, and expressing appreciation for the work of the Mission,

“Acknowledging the report of 16 September 2013 (S/2013/553) by the Mission, underscoring the need for the Mission to fulfill its mandate, and emphasizing that future credible allegations of chemical weapons use in the Syrian Arab Republic should be investigated,

“Deeply outraged by the use of chemical weapons on 21 August 2013 in Rif Damascus, as concluded in the Mission’s report, condemning the killing of civilians that resulted from it, affirming that the use of chemical weapons constitutes a serious violation of international law, and stressing that those responsible for any use of chemical weapons must be held accountable,

“Recalling the obligation under resolution 1540 (2004) that all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons and their means of delivery,

“Welcoming the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons dated 14 September 2013, in Geneva, between the Russian Federation and the United States of America (S/2013/565), with a view to ensuring the destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program in the soonest and safest manner, and expressing its commitment to the immediate international control over chemical weapons and their components in the Syrian Arab Republic,

“Welcoming the decision of the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of 27 September 2013 establishing special procedures for the expeditious destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program and stringent verification thereof, and expressing its determination to ensure the destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program according to the timetable contained in the OPCW Executive Council decision of 27 September 2013,

“Stressing that the only solution to the current crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic is through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process based on the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, and emphasizing the need to convene the international conference on Syria as soon as possible,

“Determining that the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

“Underscoring that Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Council's decisions,

“1.   Determines that the use of chemical weapons anywhere constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

“2.   Condemns in the strongest terms any use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, in particular the attack on 21 August 2013, in violation of international law;

“3.   Endorses the decision of the OPCW Executive Council 27 September 2013, which contains special procedures for the expeditious destruction of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program and stringent verification thereof and calls for its full implementation in the most expedient and safest manner;

“4.   Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall not use, develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to other States or non-State actors;

“5.   Underscores that no party in Syria should use, develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, or transfer chemical weapons;

“6.   Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall comply with all aspects of the decision of the OPCW Executive Council of 27 September 2013 (Annex I);

“7.   Decides that the Syrian Arab Republic shall cooperate fully with the OPCW and the United Nations, including by complying with their relevant recommendations, by accepting personnel designated by the OPCW or the United Nations, by providing for and ensuring the security of activities undertaken by these personnel, by providing these personnel with immediate and unfettered access to and the right to inspect, in discharging their functions, any and all sites, and by allowing immediate and unfettered access to individuals that the OPCW has grounds to believe to be of importance for the purpose of its mandate, and decides that all parties in Syria shall cooperate fully in this regard;

“8.   Decides to authorize an advance team of United Nations personnel to provide early assistance to OPCW activities in Syria, requests the Director-General of the OPCW and the Secretary-General to closely cooperate in the implementation of the Executive Council decision of 27 September 2013 and this resolution, including through their operational activities on the ground, and further requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Director-General of the OPCW and, where appropriate, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, to submit to the Council within 10 days of the adoption of this resolution recommendations regarding the role of the United Nations in eliminating the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program;

“9.   Notes that the Syrian Arab Republic is a party to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, decides that OPCW-designated personnel undertaking activities provided for in this resolution or the decision of the OPCW Executive Council of 27 September 2013 shall enjoy the privileges and immunities contained in the Verification Annex, Part II (B) of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and calls on the Syrian Arab Republic to conclude modalities agreements with the United Nations and the OPCW;

“10.  Encourages Member States to provide support, including personnel, technical expertise, information, equipment, and financial and other resources and assistance, in coordination with the Director-General of the OPCW and the Secretary-General, to enable the OPCW and the United Nations to implement the elimination of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program, and decides to authorize Member States to acquire, control, transport, transfer and destroy chemical weapons identified by the Director-General of the OPCW, consistent with the objective of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to ensure the elimination of the Syrian Arab Republic’s chemical weapons program in the soonest and safest manner;

“11.  Urges all Syrian parties and interested Member States with relevant capabilities to work closely together and with the OPCW and the United Nations to arrange for the security of the monitoring and destruction mission, recognizing the primary responsibility of the Syrian Government in this regard;

“12.  Decides to review on a regular basis the implementation in the Syrian Arab Republic of the decision of the OPCW Executive Council of 27 September 2013 and this resolution, and requests the Director-General of the OPCW to report to the Security Council, through the Secretary-General, who shall include relevant information on United Nations activities related to the implementation of this resolution, within 30 days and every month thereafter, and requests further the Director-General of the OPCW and the Secretary-General to report in a coordinated manner, as needed, to the Security Council, non-compliance with this resolution or the OPCW Executive Council decision of 27 September 2013;

“13. Reaffirms its readiness to consider promptly any reports of the OPCW under Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which provides for the referral of cases of non-compliance to the United Nations Security Council;

“14.  Decides that Member States shall inform immediately the Security Council of any violation of resolution 1540(2004), including acquisition by non-State actors of chemical weapons, their means of delivery and related materials in order to take necessary measures therefore;

“15. Expresses its strong conviction that those individuals responsible for the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic should be held accountable;

“16.  Endorses fully the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 (Annex II), which sets out a number of key steps beginning with the establishment of a transitional governing body exercising full executive powers, which could include members of the present Government and the opposition and other groups and shall be formed on the basis of mutual consent;

“17. Calls for the convening, as soon as possible, of an international conference on Syria to implement the Geneva Communiqué, and calls upon all Syrian parties to engage seriously and constructively at the Geneva Conference on Syria, and underscores that they should be fully representative of the Syrian people and committed to the implementation of the Geneva Communiqué and to the achievement of stability and reconciliation;

“18. Reaffirms that all Member States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, and calls upon all Member States, in particular Member States neighboring the Syrian Arab Republic, to report any violations of this paragraph to the Security Council immediately;

“19.  Demands that non-State actors not develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, and calls upon all Member States, in particular Member States neighboring the Syrian Arab Republic, to report any actions inconsistent with this paragraph to the Security Council immediately;

“20.  Decides that all Member States shall prohibit the procurement of chemical weapons, related equipment, goods and technology or assistance from the Syrian Arab Republic by their nationals, or using their flagged vessels or aircraft, whether or not originating in the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic;

“21.  Decides, in the event of non-compliance with this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic, to impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter;

“22. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Gallup: Only 36% of Americans favor strike on Syria

A Gallup poll, published on Friday, shows the support by Americans for U.S. military action against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad -- for its use of chemical weapons on a Damascus suburb on August 21 --  is the lowest for any intervention Gallup has asked about in the last 20 years.

Although history shows support increase should conflict start, writes Gallup’s Andrew Dugan, thirty-six percent of Americans favor the U.S. taking military action in order to reduce Syria's ability to use chemical weapons. The majority -- 51% -- oppose such action, while 13% are unsure.

Americans also opposed military intervention in Syria in a May Gallup survey. In that poll, by 68% to 24%, Americans opposed military action "to attempt to end the conflict" if "all economic and diplomatic efforts fail to end the civil war in Syria."

Dugan writes:

Support is now somewhat higher, perhaps because of new allegations, from the U.S. and other nations, that Assad's government used chemical weapons against his own people, resulting in mass casualties. However, the current question specifies a reason for the action -- to reduce Syria's ability to use chemical weapons, a narrower goal than ending the civil war, which is how Gallup previously asked about intervention.

Among recent past conflicts on which Gallup gauged public opinion prior to U.S. action, support was highest for intervening in Afghanistan and lowest for the 1999 conflict in Kosovo. Americans were divided about U.S. participation in the NATO bombing in Serbia's Kosovo region about a month before the NATO campaign began. The similarity is noteworthy because some analysts are comparing a potential strike in Syria with that military episode, in terms of scope, duration, and purpose.

The other three military engagements Gallup asked Americans about before they began -- in Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, and the Persian Gulf in 1991 -- were all on a larger scale than what President Barack Obama proposes to do in Syria, and involved sending U.S. troops into foreign countries. All of these proposed military operations received majority support before they began. Notably, all of these conflicts, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, were authorized by Congress and/or the United Nations at the time of the polling. Congress is currently debating whether to authorize military force in Syria.

Change if action is taken

If history is any guide, Americans' support for intervening in Syria may increase if the U.S. uses military force, due to what is known as a "rally effect."

Over the past 20 years, Americans' support for U.S. military engagements at the beginning of conflicts has traditionally been quite high, with an average of 68% of approving of 10 previous newly commenced conflicts.

The 1999 Kosovo/Balkans and 2003 Iraq conflicts are the clearest examples of the rally effect. Americans' backing of the bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia climbed to majority levels once the United States became militarily involved. The 2003 Iraq war is even more dramatic: 56% of Americans favored taking military action against Iraq in February 3-6, 2003, polling, about a month before the conflict began. By March 17 of that year, when war with Iraq was imminent, American approval of the coming conflict had risen to 66%. A day after the war began, support climbed to 76%.

Public support for action in Syria may also be bolstered by congressional authorization. Two wars with high levels of initial approval, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, were authorized by Congress via legislation. However, both conflicts took place in a national security climate still deeply influenced by the tragic September 11, 2001, attacks. Importantly, despite robust initial support and congressional authorization, many Americans now see these two wars as mistakes, perhaps due to the protracted U.S. engagement in those countries.

Partisanship

Americans have seen more recent wars through partisan lenses. This is true again in Syria's case, with Democrats divided on whether to intervene and a strong majority of Republicans opposed.

Independents also swing strongly against taking action, with 53% opposed. That more Democrats than Republicans support action -- a sharp reversal from the Iraq war, which Republicans were more supportive of -- is likely because a Democratic president is proposing these war measures.

Surprisingly, liberals and conservatives both skew against military action, while moderates are more divided.

Following news of Syria

The 71% of Americans who say they are following news about the civil war in Syria very or somewhat closely is up from 48% in June -- and higher than Gallup's 60% average for attention paid to hundreds of past key news events.

Implications

As Congress debates granting Obama the authorization to use military force that he deems necessary to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction in Syria, the American public is mostly against such action. Support has grown marginally since earlier this year, but a slight majority remains opposed.

Americans, at least initially, were much more supportive of previous military engagements. But after more than a decade of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, war fatigue may be lingering. This is evidenced not only by Americans' relatively low level of support for U.S. intervention in Syria, but also the less-than-majority post-intervention approval (47%) of the 2011 military action in Libya.

Historically, Americans often rally around military actions once engagement begins, and should Congress authorize U.S. action in Syria, this may also heighten support for it -- if it occurs. Currently, though, much of the nation would rather sit this one out.

Survey methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted September 3-4, 2013, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,021 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cell telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

“Safe to Speak?” Not yet…

The UN General Assembly declared May 3 to be World Press Freedom Day in 1993. I marked its 20^th anniversary this year as every year – recalling that 17 years earlier I was pining for such a marker after my soulmate and colleague was assassinated on 16 January 1976 during the Lebanon Civil War.

Yesterday, May 6, Lebanon also marked its Press Martyrs' Day.

The campaign against the Lebanese press throughout the civil war – the Internet didn’t exist – was relentless and cruel.

For emphasis, the cutting of victims’ fingers or hands often marked the killings. These were mostly executed by none other than the Syrian regime of Assad the father, whose son now carries on with the “craft” of killing journalists!

The gagging and atrocities against the media are something I lived with first hand. The fear was always there.

This is why, at Mich Café, I write about journalists, citizen journalists, bloggers and prisoners of conscience gone missing, jailed, tortured, raped and killed in Syria today.

“Safe to Speak: Securing Freedom of Expression in All Media?” is this year’s WPFD theme.

Not a chance!

Wth Najib Azzam and Koko Ohannes

The assassination in 1976 of Najib Azzam, who I thought I would spend the rest of my life with, was alas not the only one to affect me deeply.

Krikor Ohannes, who I worked closely with for 15 years at Monday Morning magazine, was another.

He was killed in 1986. Koko was our photographer and we went everywhere together, including to Amman for the wedding of Jordan’s King Hussein to Queen Noor in June 1978.

Most recently, and again at the hands of the Syrian regime, we lost Marie Colvin. We used to meet often on assignments in Tunisia and at various conferences. On our last meeting, we cooked spaghetti together. It remains one of the best.

The late Riad Taha, Salim al-Lawzi, Janet Stevens and Kamel Mroue

These assassinations are well documented in a series in my friend’s blog, ArabSaga.

He wrote a six-part series last year on “The cost of gagging Beirut”:

• The cost of gagging Beirut (1) -- 2 January 2012 – Kamel Mroue: He spoke his mind and went his way
• The cost of gagging Beirut (2) -- 6 January 2012 – Najib Azzam: A rendezvous with death
• The cost of gagging Beirut (3) -- 13 January 2012 – Salim al-Lawzi:  His dying thoughts
• The cost of gagging Beirut (4) -- 20 January 2012 – Riad Taha: A posthumous message
• The cost of gagging Beirut (5) -- 27 January 2012 – Janet Lee Stevens: American Arabist in “Slaughterhouse Lebanon”
• The cost of gagging Beirut (6) -- 28 February 2012 – Krikor Ohannes: The baby panda shot in the face

“Safe to Speak?” No.

There is no free press. It is difficult to get objective opinion and analysis. Maybe this is where blogs take over from traditional media in that you can read native writers on the ground, who understand a region, a culture, the language and can report on it.

World Press Freedom Day on May 3 celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

May 3 was proclaimed World Press Freedom Day at the UN General Assembly in 1993 following a Recommendation by African journalists in Namibia and adopted, as the Windhoek Declaration, at the 26th session of UNESCO's General Conference in 1991.

WPFD informs of violations of press freedom -- a reminder that in dozens of countries around the world, publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed down, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and even murdered, UNESCO writes.

WPFD is also a day of remembrance for those journalists who lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

The Windhoek perspective applies equally today to broadcasting and digital media platforms as mobile phones, the Internet and satellites are becoming more central to all communications.

In 2012 alone, UNESCO condemned the killings of 121 journalists -- almost double the annual figures of 2011 and 2010.

In addition, it says, there continues to be widespread harassment, intimidation, arbitrary arrest and online attacks on journalists in many parts of the world.

To compound the problem, the rate of impunity for crimes against journalists, media workers and social media producers remains extremely high.

World Press Freedom? Not yet, but we keep fighting for it.

We keep fighting for it to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice and have lost their lives to relay the message.

Thank you, your words will stay alive.

Related posts:

Ambassador Tom Fletcher and Minister Alistair Burt marked World Press Freedom Day in a video message from Beirut