For Palestinians trapped in the ruins of war-ravaged Yarmouk refugee camp in Damascus, life is “a very slow death,” its residents say.

“We are always waiting for death – from hunger, barrel bombs or being beheaded,” 21-year-old Nidal told the digital media project Syria Deeply. “Death’s coming and we cannot stop it. If we don’t get food, we’ll all die of hunger.”

As the world faces the worst refugee crisis in living memory – some 60 million people are on the run in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere from conflict, war and persecution – our collective moral compass seems to be failing us badly.

Canada’s response has been uneven on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s watch. While we have given nearly $1 billion in recent years to the war-ravaged Mideast in humanitarian, development and security help, that’s no more than our fair share. And Harper has only recently stepped up our refugee intake, promising to take in a grand total of 44,300 refugees from the region for the entire decade between 2009 and 2019. Opposition leaders Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau both promise to do better if they form a government after the election.

Whoever takes the reins of Canada’s foreign policy after Oct. 19 should step up the effort and use what moral leverage we have to urge other more powerful, more affluent actors – the United States, the European Union, and major Asian and Latin American counties leap to mind – to push for a political settlement to Syria’s destabilizing civil war, heed the United Nation’s call for more financial resources, and open the gates to more refugees.

The UN is under strain as never before. It needs $20 billion to get into places such as Yarmouk and worse, to help the millions of refugees in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere who constitute the biggest humanitarian crisis in our lifetime. But its appeal is going largely unheard.

While $20 billion is a daunting sum, it is barely 1 per cent of the world’s $1.8 trillion military spending, and is a pittance measured against the sheer global need. It works out to $1 a day per refugee to provide food, clothing, shelter, water, medical aid and schooling. Even so, the UN has managed to raise only about $6 billion so far this year. That’s 30 cents per refugee per day. Why the shortfall? Some affluent countries give little; others promise but don’t deliver.

As a result, the UN High Commission for Refugees and the World Food Program are finding themselves in desperate straits in places such as Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, forced to cut back on cash assistance for families, consider closing schools, curtail vaccination programs, and even trim back on food allocations.

The outlook for far too many refugees and displaced people is “bleak,” warns WFP chief Ertharin Cousin. And half of them are especially vulnerable children. “The need is outpacing the traditional generosity,” she says, “because of competing demands from humanitarian crises in the region and the world.

“We need those who have given to give more; we need those who have not given to invest in our work.”

Moreover, as aid runs short, asylum is in even shorter supply.

The UNHCR reports that barely 140,000 refugees, about 1 per cent of those in its care, find new homes in any given year, mostly because the circle of welcoming countries is very small. That too speaks volumes about the world’s callous indifference. It also explains the desperation of the 340,000 asylum-seekers who have arrived at Europe’s none-too-welcoming gates so far this year.

As one of the more generous UN donors, and as one of the few refugee-welcoming countries, Canada can do better, and can also urge others to follow suit. As the election campaign unfolds those are commitments that more than a few Canadians would like to hear all the parties agree on.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: