The past week has seemed like a bad rerun. For the third time in 15 years, western countries, led by the United States, have taken military action against a majority Muslim, Middle Eastern country. Support for intervention is not limited to the hard right: that Syria should be bombed was the mainstream view of the American foreign policy establishment, along with Britain and France.

Let us be clear that the use of chemical weapons is a horrific crime. But we do not know the full story of what happened in Douma; to say this is not to engage in conspiracy theories, but merely to admit that it has still been only a few days since the reports emerged. Yet there seems to be little interest among pro-interventionists in asking even basic questions, or in allowing the UN to lead an investigation. We have been here before with the lies that led to the Iraq war, but that precedent does not seem to deter western leaders as they seek yet again to rush to claim the moral high ground.

Non-western countries must recognise that by turning a blind eye, they relegate themselves to second-tier players

But if it is astounding that after failure in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the west has chosen military intervention again, what is just as disappointing is that the rest of the world continues to turn a blind eye. It is time for non-western countries to recognise that by not getting proactively involved in international diplomatic efforts on these big issues, they relegate themselves to second-tier players, and allow western leaders to define what “appropriate” and “responsible” actions are.

There has been some progress. Long criticised for not living up to its global responsibilities as a major power, in recent years China has expanded its foreign presence and soft power, with the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Belt and Road Initiative and a greater presence in global peacekeeping forces. Or look at south-east Asia, a region that has seen decades of interstate peace while being at least as ethnically and religiously diverse as the war-torn Middle East.

But while governments as well as individuals across Africa and Asia are frustrated and angered by self-serving western actions, most remain silent. And without alternative initiatives and engagement from non-western actors, the west ends up monopolising the discussion. It is time politicians and diplomats in other parts of the world seized the initiative and stopped accepting their second-class status in the affairs of the world.

Western nations may resist the erosion of their influence. Remember how the west dismissed the brokering initiative of the African Union in Libya and instead resorted to military intervention? It is a firmly held, yet rarely spoken, view in western political and diplomatic circles, that the rest of the world is unqualified to play any role in such crises – even though when it comes to understanding the root causes of many geopolitical tensions, diplomats from countries that have been colonised or otherwise interfered with by foreign powers are surely better equipped than the former colonial powers to find solutions.

A high-level UN delegation, not led by western diplomats but instead by others from Asia, Africa and the Middle East, working for the last few years with the Syrian government, might well have found some solutions, had President Assad been offered some form of guarantee that he would not meet the same fate as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi.

After this latest strike by the west, the rest of the world needs to say “enough is enough”. Large, non-western countries or blocks such as India, Japan, China, Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and others such as the African Union, need to not just speak out against strikes, as China already has, but also work together to propose – and perhaps even implement – a different, non-violent and diplomatic platform. Allowing the west to dictate terms is last century’s norm.

• Chandran Nair is chief executive and founder of the Global Institute For Tomorrow, a Hong Kong based thinktank