Column: As the Middle East’s refugee crisis grows, why so few humanitarians?

It’s been nothing short of astonishing to watch Germany embrace the role of moral leader in Europe — no, make that the world — on the migration crisis that has sent thousands of Syrians and others streaming into the continent by land and sea.

“This can make us proud,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said, praising the ordinary Germans who joyfully welcomed refugees in train stations across the country. “It is a true miracle,” German political analyst Josef Joffe told Politico.

In Germany, political pressure to do more for migrants has been building for months. That’s partly because of the country’s tragic history; after neo-Nazis attacked refugee centers this year, there was a nationwide backlash. But it’s also partly because Germans face a shrinking population and a labor shortage; far from worrying about immigrants taking jobs, they are looking for new workers. (The European Union forecasts that without increased immigration, Germany’s population will decline by about 20% by 2080, from 82 million to 66 million.)

So, when Merkel’s government announced this week that it was willing to accept 500,000 refugees a year, she was courting public opinion.

Other European countries and the U.S. aren’t following suit, even though their people, like the Germans, have seen the same pictures of dead children and desperate migrants. The laws of normal politics — and the habit of worrying about uncontrolled immigration, especially from Muslim countries — haven’t been suspended elsewhere.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, said his country would take 20,000 refugees — but spaced out over the next five years. France made a similarly modest offer.

The Obama White House said Tuesday that it was considering “steps that we can take to help those countries that are bearing the brunt of this burden” — not much of a commitment. The United States has offered to accept as many as 8,000 Syrian refugees a year, but it will come nowhere near that target in 2015; stringent screening procedures (to weed out potential terrorists, among other things) will impose months of delay on every applicant.

With more than 4 million Syrian refugees outside their home country, and millions more displaced in Syria, all the numbers except Germany’s are drops in the bucket.

“The refugee crisis is asking Europeans to live up to their values in ways that are likely to be costly [and] inconvenient,” Gideon Rachman wrote in London’s Financial Times on Tuesday. “It would be heartwarming to believe that the crowds that turned out to welcome Syrian refugees arriving at Munich station show that Europe will respect its commitments in full. It would also be dangerously naive.” His assessment fits the United States as well.

But accepting refugees isn’t the only way to help people in distress. The biggest humanitarian problem isn’t the thousands of migrants streaming through the railway stations of Europe; it’s the millions still stuck in the Middle East, whether in their home countries or a refugee camp close by.

And when it comes to providing them food, clothing and shelter, some of the same countries that are refusing to increase immigration are falling amazingly short. One reason so many Syrian refugees are on the move is that funding deficits have forced the United Nations to cut food rations in its camps in Jordan and Turkey.

The U.N.’s humanitarian aid chief said last week that his agencies had received only one-third the funding they need for Syrian relief in 2015 — $2.4 billion of their $7.4-billion budget.

“Funding shortfalls in Syria can be the difference between life and death,” Stephen O’Brien, the U.N.’s undersecretary-general, warned. “The World Food Program has already scaled back food aid by one-fifth.” The cuts are also harming healthcare and education for Syrian children, he added.

According to U.N. figures, more than half of the money to help Syrian refugees this year has come from only three countries: the United States, Britain and Kuwait. Others, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have given far less: $18 million from Saudi Arabia, for example, against more than $1.1 billion from the United States.

It’s unrealistic to expect many countries to go the way of Germany and throw open the doors to unrestricted immigration from the troubled Middle East. But it’s not unrealistic to demand that they do more for refugees marooned in underfunded camps, and for the countries around Syria that have taken them in. That’s the first place rich countries ought to step up.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Twitter: @doylemcmanus

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook