The most recent crisis encompassing the Middle East is the starvation and suffering of millions fo of civilians and refugees in Syria.

Because of the rebel attacks in Zabadani, Syria 10,000 refugees fled to Madaya in hopes of finding safety. Since then, Madaya has been surrounded by government forces and stopped receiving aid last October. The world is truly experiencing a migrant crisis.

According to the New York Times, nearly 42,000 people in Madaya were experiencing serious malnutrition, and were living off of only salt, grass and unsanitary water.

In January, the UN and Unicef finally reached the town of Madaya with aid. Forty-nine delivery trucks arrived with relief supplies and were immediately struck by the horror of the situation.

Why should these 42,000 suffer from the rebels attacking their own country? Why is it that whenever a country is in crisis, they cannot rely on other countries to help during this massive influx of migrants?

When it comes down to it, global crises are most of the time saved or helped by some type of organizations or agencies such as, UNICEF, World Food Program (WFP), World Health Organization (WHO), and more. Individual countries do not help nearly as much.

All of these agencies and organizations help countries all over the world every day during a crisis. These organizations make a tremendous impact on saving the lives of these people living in less fortunate countries and yet why do less fortunate countries, or countries in a crisis have to rely on organizations rather than the world’s wealthy countries?

What backfires on refugees seeking a safe place are the harsh asylum laws in different countries. Laws including the Dublin Regulation say that refugees may only seek asylum in the first country they arrive in, which isn’t always the best option, as asylum seekers may not always arrive in their country of choice.

Germany, however, subverted the Dublin Regulation by taking in refugees no matter which country they initially arrive in.

Regardless of Germany’s choice, many of the world’s most developed countries favor the anti-immigrant sentiment. Viktor Orban, prime minster of Hungary said, “We have the right not to live together with populous Muslim communities, this is our policy.”

Although the U.S. is one of the world’s most developed countries and has paid $4 billion in aid to refugees since 2011, only 1,500 Syrians have been given asylum since 2011. With the U.S. having a proud history of resettling refugees, 1,500 Syrian refugees is a disappointing number.

2016 presidential candidate, Donald Trump’s response to the migrant crisis was, “I’d love to help, but we have our own problems.” Sad, but true, this is the response for the most developed countries when it comes down to accepting refugees.

The U.S. is not the only nation obligated to help in this crisis, as the nearby Gulf countries that are some of the richest in the world, such as Saudi Arabia, Uae, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain are high advocates of backing up fighting groups in the Syrian government, but have taken in zero refugees.

People must stop worrying about inconveniencing their own easy way of life and delegating important acts to others. It is absolutely imperative that the welathier nations of the globe bestow kindness and benevolence to these victims of war and open up both their hearts and their pocket books to help their fellow human beings.