IN 2005 all the world's countries signed up, in theory, to a new norm called the "responsibility to protect". In short, the idea is that a government is sovereign because it protects its people. When it cannot do so—or worse, is the perpetrator of mass violence against its own—the responsibility to protect them may devolve to the international community. For a while, this norm was mostly airy, referred to when other countries or United Nations diplomats got involved to stop violence in its earliest phases. But some construe the "responsibility to protect" as a mandate for "liberal interventionism": the right of outside countries to step in militarily when abuses get serious enough.

Now outsiders are clamouring to do something serious about Syria. No one is pushing a military intervention—not even the Western countries sounding the harshest notes about Bashar Assad, Syria's dictator. But two of the veto-wielding members of the Security Council, China and particularly Russia, feel that the "responsibility to protect" has already gone far enough, thank you very much. Last year, they signed on to a resolution that authorised "all necessary means" to protect Libyan civilians from Muammar Qaddafi. That intervention became a NATO-led air war against Libya's regime, and ended with Qaddafi's bloody death at the hands of the rebels. The Russians felt duped.

This is behind the Russian reticence, this week, to sign on to a draft resolution that would have Mr Assad delegate power to his deputy. This is despite strong support not only from a unified West, but from the Arab League, which has suspended Syria. The assertiveness of the league, once a do-nothing talking shop for tyrants, has been striking. It suspended its observer mission in Syria because of threats to its personnel and inability to do a proper job monitoring. Observers hope that a personal briefing by league representatives about the bloodshed will sway the recalcitrant Security Council members.

But the Russians, citing Syria's sovereignty, have shown no sign of budging (which suits the Chinese, who do not like vetoing resolutions alone). The frustrated other members of the 15-seat council are still trying to craft a resolution everyone can agree to. But if they cannot, they have hinted that they will force a vote anyway, to get a Russian veto on the record at least. For those dying in Syria, the manoeuvring must seem absurdly abstract, and Russia's desire for "a peaceful settlement without foreign intervention and with respect to the sovereignty of Syria" somewhere between cynical and downright ridiculous.

(Photo credit: AFP)