chemical coup d'etat

adnans

http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=504

an interesting article spotted in today's guardian about US government's plan to remove Jose Bustani, the man in charge of The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

OPCW is a genuine organisation that wants to reduce the amount of chemical weapons in the world. then why does US government want Bustani ousted from the organisation? are they the only ones standing between US and Iraq from going into full scale war again?

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.

adnans

bonkey

My favourite line from teh article :

The US has not sought to substantiate the charges it has made against Bustani

This is what interests me - I'm really interested in hearing the justification for this one. I can see two lines of justification :

1) It is not up to the US to prove these allegations, as it is not a court of law.

2) Saddam refuses inspectors because he's a mad-crazy anti-American warmonger. America is only protecting its own interests, and we should just trust them when they tell us they are obeying the rules. And besides, even if they werent, they're still the good guys, so we shouldnt be worried.

Hmmm. Not sure I'd go for either of those meself, but I'm also not convinced of Monbiot's conclusion that the US want Bustani out so that he cant prevent them from going to war.

jc

Flemmish Flame

Well America has always had the tendancy to mingle with others and hide his own affairs behind curtains. However in these days the slogan: "THe Greatest Democracy in the World" which gives any American euforic vibe is in actual fact the most Controlled Society of the World and then the quote I read:

It has also passed special legislation permitting the president to block unannounced inspections, and banning inspectors from removing samples of its chemicals.

:mad:

adnans

the session started yesterday and www.opcw.org released a statement from Jose Bustani read out at the start of the precedings.

http://www.opcw.org/SS1CSP/SS1CSP_DG_statement.html

last four parapgraphs said it all. he wasnt stepping down.

Although this unprecedented, ruthless and arbitrary procedure is taking place away from the public limelight, beneath the low skies of the subdued city of The Hague, the decisions to be taken here over the next few days will leave an indelible mark on the history of international relations. I hope that all of you, the Member States, will confront this historic challenge in full awareness of the implications of your decision. The choices that you make during this session of the Conference will determine whether genuine multilateralism will survive, or whether it will be replaced by unilateralism in a multilateral disguise.

sadly though, he has been dismissed due to a vote 48 - 7 (43 nations abstaining). details on CBS news website

is this a good thing or a bad thing? i would think the latter, mainly beacuse i believe from what i've read that bustani was indeed doing a fine management job and treated every state member equally regardless of their influence or their contribution to the organisation.

for a country that cant control its own chemical weapons what kind of influence does the US have to lead a vote to oust a director-general of a multilateral organisation?

looks like its time to get chemical on your asses

adnans

dahamsta

Do you know how Ireland and the UK voted adnans?

adan

adnans

Countries supporting the US resolution are mostly European, as well as Australia, Japan, Turkey, South Korea, Moldova and Uzbekistan. Countries reportedly on the fence include most Latin American and African countries. Latin American countries abstained en bloc at a U.S. orchestrated no-confidence vote of the OPCW’s executive committee that failed last month. Brazil voted in opposition to removal.

from http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/3/25/7s.html

i would say Ireland and UK supported the US resolution too.

Bustani's case has grabbed some support in popular culture. Musicians Peter Gabriel, Annie Lennox, Thom Yorke and Brian Eno have signed a letter to members of the British parliament.

whatever happened to intellectuals, politicians and men and women from legal places signing letters in support?

adnans

swiss

It seems obvious that the United States are being partisan to their interests by their insistence that Jose Bustani be removed from office immediately. Without evidence (that they promised to provide) to support their claims of "mis-management" and "bias" I view this as a cynical attempt to remove someone simply because they do not like what he is doing.

I am surprised, however, by the margin with which he was voted out. I wonder how many other countries had supported the proposal because of their fear of the repercussions from the US should it be rejected, and how many actually agreed with the US assessment.

I think that the US had him removed because he did not treat them in the deferential manner to which they are accustomed. I think that, by seeking the entry of Iraq into the international organisation, he ruffled the US' feathers, as this would lose the US some moral high ground in imposing economic sanctions against a poverty stricken populace.

I am very interesting in finding out which way Ireland voted. Is there any way to find out?

Bateman

Not being cynical (well maybe a little) but there is not much chance of Ireland voting against the US on anythinganything is there?
It should be taken for granted.
But on the matter of finding out, I wonder how we would go about it? Probably by ringing local TD. The solution to all our problems.

dahamsta

Thank for that adnans.

swiss said: I wonder how many other countries had supported the proposal because of their fear of the repercussions from the US should it be rejected, and how many actually agreed with the US assessment.

Of course it's hard to tell from just news reports, but if the news is correct, it would seem that the US has refused to back up its claims at every juncture, so it's hard to believe that many agreed with the US, and much easier to believe that votes were bought and coerced. "Bought" would seem to be a primary factor here, since it appears that the US pays for many of the signatories, and threatened to stop paying unless they voted in-line with the US. When they finally pay.

Bateman said: there is not much chance of Ireland voting against the US on anything is there?

Well, a large number of countries abstained from the vote. I respect that Ireland would have difficulty voting against the US, for political reasons, but I would hope that Ireland would have at least abstained in these circumstances. If Ireland chose to vote with the US, I would like to hear their reasoning. In fact, I would like to hear their reasoning anyway.

adam