Column Lynch describes the cautious diplomatic response of India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA) to the Syrian crackdown:

But in New York, IBSA’s diplomatic strategy has been marked by efforts to shield Syria and restrain the United States and its European partners. They argue that the council’s Western powers have been too ready to impose sanctions or use force to resolve crises, and have devoted too little to diplomacy. One frustrated Western diplomat quipped that the group’s acronym, scrambled, spells BIAS, a reflection of the group’s pro-Syrian slant during talks.

This letter scramble is supposed to be funny, but it reflects the degree to which Western governments really can be oblivious to how their policies are perceived and resented by developing countries and rising powers alike. If there was not as much international consensus on Libya as advertised, there were not many major governments willing to delay U.N. responses to Gaddafi’s crackdown. That cooperation was abused by the most aggressive members of the Council, and a limited mandate was turned into a justification for toppling the government.

As the Libyan war drags on into day 146, it is hard to take seriously that there is something particularly biased about the reluctance of India, Brazil, and South Africa to push through new Security Council resolutions aimed at isolating and penalizing yet another state. It is a reasonable response that any government would have after permitting an intervention that has become synonymous with open-ended mission creep. In fact, the Council’s Western powers are always too ready to impose sanctions or use force to resolve crises when the state in question is one they dislike. Western powers have devoted too little to diplomacy. If the IBSA governments are unduly averse to interfering in other states’ internal affairs, Western governments are usually all too eager to do so. Ambassador Rice can dismiss the argument that Libya has poisoned the Council against acting on Syria, but this is what has happened, or at the very least it is the pretext other governments will use to explain their reluctance to support Security Council measures against Assad.

P.S. I should add that the fundamental disagreements between the West and rising democratic powers in Latin America, Asia, and Africa on how to respond in these situations are the central reason why any “league of democracies” or “global NATO” intended as a vehicle for future interventionism will never get off the ground. The more democratic the rest of the world becomes, the less interested it is in permitting Western governments to determine the political future of other states.