Where is the Security Council?

Thursday’s meeting in Paris of 63 countries to launch the reconstruction phase of the Libyan revolution went well.  Money is starting to flow (including a big shipment of Libyan cash) and the Transitional National Council (TNC) continues to say all the right things:  no revenge, contracts will be respected, democracy and rule of law should prevail.  Elections within 18 months, which is more reasonable than the 12 months previously mooted.

The trick now is implementation.  Even at yesterday’s meeting, there was friction over contracts.  The French foreign minister made it clear he thought Paris deserved a lion’s share because of its role in the NATO military action.  This friction and many others will grow.  It is important that too much money not flow too fast into Libya:  I’ve never seen a post-war reconstruction effort that would not have benefitted from less funding, which forces decisions on priorities and gives decent people incentives to block corrupt practices.

What the international community needs is a common script:  a United Nations Security Council resolution that sets out strategic goals for Libya, as defined by the Libyans and agreed with the international community.  The ideal vehicle for this is the new resolution needed to lift sanctions.  This should state the main goals, which I might summarize something like this:  Libya will be a single, united country with its capital in Tripoli governed by democratic processes under the rule of law.  It will use its natural resources transparently and accountably to benefit all its citizens, live in peace with its neighbors and fulfill its obligations under international agreements it has signed as well as the UN charter.

This would not eliminate all frictions in the international community:  a country as rich as Libya is bound to create rivalries among oil and gas consumers as well as suppliers of good and services.  But it would help to frame the international effort and provide some touchstones to guide reconstruction efforts.

Libya is not the only country needing a Security Council resolution.  None has yet passed denouncing the regime’s violence against its citizens in Syria, because Moscow is blocking it.  The Secretary of State rightly spent some time yesterday cajoling the Europeans to block oil and oil product imports from Syria, which would deprive Damascus of something like one quarter or one third of its normal revenue.  But we should not lose sight of the need for the UNSC to speak up against the blatant violations of human rights Bashar al Assad is indulging in.

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice has done incredible things this year–Qaddafi would still be sitting pretty in Tripoli but for UN Security Council resolution 1973.  She has also gotten the Human Rights Council, that much-criticized body, to play a positive role on Syria, denouncing the regime violence there.  But there is no rest for the weary.  A strong UNSC resolution is out of the question–there won’t be any authorization to use “all necessary means,”  which is the kind of thing needed to implement military options. The Russians are nowhere near going along with it, because of their long friendship with Syria and their use of port facilities at Latakia.

But it is hard for me to believe that the UNSC can allow what Damascus is doing to pass in silence.  The Russians should now be worried about their own long-term relationship with a regime that is looking shaky, even if no one expects it to fall soon.  Bashar al Assad does not have a lot of friends left.  Most of them are in Tehran, which has recently been urging Bashar to reform.  Moscow also needs to make sure it is, as President Obama likes to put it, on the right side of history.

PS:  The EU went ahead with the oil ban on Syria today.  Bravo to both the Europeans and the Secretary of State, who pressed the case hard!