BS: Jose Bustani, OPCW

Subject: Jose Bustani, OPCW
From: sophocleese
Date: 20 Apr 02 - 08:57 AM

I thought some people should, and would like to, know about this.

From the Guardian, found on rabble.com. You could try contacting your congressman, MP whatever about it.

Chemical coup d'etat

The US wants to depose the diplomat who could take away its pretext for war with Iraq

George Monbiot Guardian

Tuesday April 16, 2002

On Sunday, the US government will launch an international coup. It has been planned for a month. It will be executed quietly, and most of us won't know what is happening until it's too late. It is seeking to overthrow 60 years of multilateralism in favour of a global regime built on force.

The coup begins with its attempt, in five days' time, to unseat the man in charge of ridding the world of chemical weapons. If it succeeds, this will be the first time that the head of a multilateral agency will have been deposed in this manner. Every other international body will then become vulnerable to attack. The coup will also shut down the peaceful options for dealing with the chemical weapons Iraq may possess, helping to ensure that war then becomes the only means of destroying them.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) enforces the chemical weapons convention. It inspects labs and factories and arsenals and oversees the destruction of the weapons they contain. Its director-general is a workaholic Brazilian diplomat called Jose Bustani. He has, arguably, done more in the past five years to promote world peace than anyone else on earth. His inspectors have overseen the destruction of 2 million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world's chemical weapon facilities. He has so successfully cajoled reluctant nations that the number of signatories to the convention has risen from 87 to 145 in the past five years: the fastest growth rate of any multilateral body in recent times.

In May 2000, as a tribute to his extraordinary record, Bustani was re-elected unanimously by the member states for a second five-year term, even though he had yet to complete his first one. Last year Colin Powell wrote to him to thank him for his "very impressive" work. But now everything has changed. The man celebrated for his achievements has been denounced as an enemy of the people.

In January, with no prior warning or explanation, the US state department asked the Brazilian government to recall him, on the grounds that it did not like his "management style". This request directly contravenes the chemical weapons convention, which states "the director-general ... shall not seek or receive instructions from any government". Brazil refused. In March the US government accused Bustani of "financial mismanagement", "demoralisation" of his staff, "bias" and "ill-considered initiatives". It warned that if he wanted to avoid damage to his reputation, he must resign.

Again, the US was trampling the convention, which insists that member states shall "not seek to influence" the staff. He refused to go. On March 19 the US proposed a vote of no confidence in Bustani. It lost. So it then did something unprecedented in the history of multi lateral diplomacy. It called a "special session" of the member states to oust him. The session begins on Sunday. And this time the US is likely to get what it wants.

Since losing the vote last month, the United States, which is supposed to be the organisation's biggest donor, has been twisting the arms of weaker nations, refusing to pay its dues unless they support it, with the result that the OPCW could go under. Last week Bustani told me, "the Europeans are so afraid that the US will abandon the convention that they are prepared to sacrifice my post to keep it on board". His last hope is that the United Kingdom, whose record of support for the organisation has so far been exemplary, will make a stand. The meeting on Sunday will present Tony Blair's government with one of the clearest choices it has yet faced between multilateralism and the "special relationship".

The US has not sought to substantiate the charges it has made against Bustani. The OPCW is certainly suffering from a financial crisis, but that is largely because the US unilaterally capped its budget and then failed to pay what it owed. The organisation's accounts have just been audited and found to be perfectly sound. Staff morale is higher than any organisation as underfunded as the OPCW could reasonably expect. Bustani's real crimes are contained in the last two charges, of "bias" and "ill-considered initiatives".

The charge of bias arises precisely because the OPCW is not biased. It has sought to examine facilities in the United States with the same rigour with which it examines facilities anywhere else. But, just like Iraq, the US has refused to accept weapons inspectors from countries it regards as hostile to its interests, and has told those who have been allowed in which parts of a site they may and may not inspect. It has also passed special legislation permitting the president to block unannounced inspections, and banning inspectors from removing samples of its chemicals.

"Ill-considered initiatives" is code for the attempts Bustani has made, in line with his mandate, to persuade Saddam Hussein to sign the chemical weapons convention. If Iraq agrees, it will then be subject to the same inspections - both routine and unannounced - as any other member state (with the exception, of course, of the United States). Bustani has so far been unsuccessful, but only because, he believes, he has not yet received the backing of the UN security council, with the result that Saddam knows he would have little to gain from signing.

Bustani has suggested that if the security council were to support the OPCW's bid to persuade Iraq to sign, this would provide the US with an alternative to war. It is hard to see why Saddam Hussein would accept weapons inspectors from Unmovic - the organisation backed by the security council - after its predecessor, Unscom, was found to be stuffed with spies planted by the US government. It is much easier to see why he might accept inspectors from an organisation which has remained scrupulously even-handed. Indeed, when Unscom was thrown out of Iraq in 1998, the OPCW was allowed in to complete the destruction of the weapons it had found. Bustani has to go because he has proposed the solution to a problem the US does not want solved.

"What the Americans are doing," Bustani says, "is a coup d'etat. They are using brute force to amend the convention and unseat the director-general." As the chemical weapons convention has no provisions permitting these measures, the US is simply ripping up the rules. If it wins, then the OPCW, like Unscom, will be fatally compromised. Success for the United States on Sunday would threaten the independence of every multilateral body.

This is, then, one of those rare occasions on which our government could make a massive difference to the way the world is run. It could choose to support its closest ally, wrecking multilateralism and shutting down the alternatives to war. Or it could defy the United States in defence of world peace and international law. It will take that principled stand only if we, the people from whom it draws its power, make so much noise that it must listen. We have five days in which to stop the US from bullying its way to war.

www.monbiot.com

Subject: RE: BS: Jose Bustani, OPCW
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 02 - 02:57 PM

And here is a letter from today's Guardian on the same topic, signed by various people (most of the not the usual suspects who sign letters generally)

Guardian

Saturday April 20, 2002

Tomorrow, the US government will attempt to remove the director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons from his post (Chemical coup d'etat, April 16). By encouraging Saddam Hussein to sign the chemical weapons convention, Jose Bustani appears to have become an obstacle to the American intention to engage in military action in Iraq. If the US succeeds, it will be a victory for unilateralism and a blow to international law.

The OPCW is the first global regime aimed at abolishing an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. With the backing of the UN security council, Bustani believes he can persuade Iraq to join the convention, offering the most realistic peaceful means of eliminating its chemical weapons.

At stake is the independence of the OPCW and of all the multilateral organisations. After seeking unsuccessfully, in defiance of international law, to force Bustani to resign, the US government has called a special meeting, beginning tomorrow, to sack him. It has threatened to withdraw OPCW's funding if it does not get its way, which would cripple the organisation. This action is unprecedented. If the other signatories to the convention give in, the entire system of international treaties and organisations could become endangered, as powerful nations see that they can challenge their independence.

The UK's record of support for the chemical weapons convention has so far been exemplary. We call upon the government to put world peace ahead of the special relationship by defending the OPCW against US unilateralism.

Brian Eno, Robbie Williams, Damien Hirst, Salman Rushdie, Peter Gabriel, Dave Stewart, Thom Yorke, Joe Strummer, Annie Lennox, Bianca Jagger, Jonathan Ross, Marc Quinn, Robert Wyatt, Robert Fripp, Holly Johnson, Andy Kershaw, Bonnie Greer, Charlie Gillettand 16 others.

Subject: RE: BS: Jose Bustani, OPCW
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Apr 02 - 04:35 PM

Pretty arrogant and egocentrical isn't it? I hadn't heard this, but I refuse to condone it. Damn The Shrub anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jose Bustani, OPCW
From: sophocleese
Date: 21 Apr 02 - 11:17 PM

refresh, because I think its important.

Actually although a little less enjoyable I think its even more important that more threads about possible trolling guests.

Subject: RE: BS: Jose Bustani, OPCW
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 21 Apr 02 - 11:24 PM

it was suggested that we contact our MP's, congressmen or whatever. The question is how much boat-rocking does anyone honestly believe that the average elected represenetive will do? They don't represent us THAT much.

Subject: RE: BS: Jose Bustani, OPCW
From: sophocleese
Date: 22 Apr 02 - 08:15 AM

Every little helps, I hope. We can but try.

Subject: RE: BS: Jose Bustani, OPCW
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Apr 02 - 07:20 AM

Well, they got rid of him, with massive abstentions from countries that didn't feel like defying the US, but didn't want to vote for a stitch-up either. (The UK of course backed the USA to the hilt.)

Here's a news story about it from today's Guardian

And here is an article also from today's Guardian about this and other similar stuff that is going down.

Here's a quote:

On Friday, the US ambassador to the OPCW organised an illegal meeting with American members of the organisation's staff. ...But the ambassador explained that if the replacement is "like Bustani we will say 'screw the organisation'. We'll dismantle our [chemical] weapons independently and monitor them ourselves".

The US had promised that the directorship would pass to another Latin American. But the ambassador was kind enough to note that "Latin Americans are so characterised by sheer incompetence that they won't be able to make up their minds". He warned the meeting "if any of this gets out of this room, I'll kill the person responsible".

Another victory for the people who want to see America act in a way that in the long run threatens to destroy it.