It is deplorable that some members of the United Nations Security Council – most disappointingly, Brazil, India and South Africa – were reluctant to pass a resolution condemning the Syrian military's continual attacks on unarmed demonstrators. At long last, on Wednesday, the council issued a "statement," which does include the verb "condemn," but carries less authority than a resolution.
Lebanon is one council member that is in an awkward position, being to a large degree under Syria's domination. It dissociated itself from the statement – not a praiseworthy act, but an understandable one.
In another way, China's opposition to a formal resolution on the violent Syrian crackdown is understandable. It is a one-party state. Its rulers naturally have little or no sympathy for the Arab spring, with its aspirations for democracy, or for its troubled summer aftermath. And Russia – whose ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, has been in the thick of the manoeuvrings on Syria – inherited from the Soviet Union a relationship with the one-party Baathist regime.
Better could have been expected from some other members of the council. India has been a great exemplar of democracy in the developing world (apart from a 21-month state of emergency). As for Brazil, it suffered under military dictatorship for decades, but has adapted well to a healthy two-party system. The long, hard struggle of South Africa for majority rule benefited greatly from international solidarity; South Africa should be able in its turn to express its support for the people of the Arab world in their difficult transition to democracy.
The foot-draggers apparently pointed to the council's resolution on Libya, which may indeed have been overzealously carried out. That is beside the point; the proposed resolution on Syria was never designed to include any armed intervention.
The principle of the responsibility to protect civilians is hard to implement, but there is no excuse for the hesitation of emerging powers to condemn violence against demonstrators for democracy.