|
Disarmament DiplomacyNews ReviewUS Diplomatic Offensive Removes OPCW Director-GeneralIn one of the most traumatic episodes in arms control history, José Bustani, the Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) - the implementing authority for the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) - has been dismissed by a Special Session of the Conference of States Parties (CSP) in The Hague. Largely at the behest of the United States, a motion calling for Bustani's immediate dismissal was carried on April 22 by 48 votes to 6 (Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran, Mexico, Russia) with 43 abstentions. Deputy Director John Gee of Australia will serve in Bustani's stead while a replacement is sought. Developments at the Special Session were formally summarised by Conference Chair Ambassador Heinrich Reimann of Switzerland on April 24: "After the Conference considered the proposal to end the tenure of the Director-General of the Technical Secretariat for the requisite 24-hour period, in an effort to reach a consensus decision, a roll-call vote was held... Over a two-thirds majority of those states parties present and voting supported the proposal. Following the decision of the Conference, I thanked the outgoing Director-General for his many years of dedicated service to the Organisation. Under Mr. Bustani's leadership, this Organisation has become one of the foremost multilateral disarmament Organisations, setting standards of excellence and equal treatment. The Conference considered the process for the selection and appointment of a replacement for Mr. Bustani and has decided to suspend its deliberations until the Executive Council meets and provides a recommendation on the appointment of a new Director-General, no later than June 10, 2002." The US sought the removal of the widely respected Brazilian diplomat on grounds of severe mismanagement, consistent incompetence and political bias. Critics translated these allegations as unhappiness in Washington at the Director-General's independence in assessing the requirements of all states parties with regard to treaty obligations, particularly with regard to allowing inspections of chemical facilities without demur and paying financial contributions without delay. Bustani's tenure, dating back to the entry into force of the CWC in 1997 and renewed by acclamation for a further four years in May 2000, was also distinguished by strong efforts to encourage developing countries - including states such as Iraq, consistently placed beyond the pale of respectability by successive US administrations - to join and participate fully in the OPCW regime. Overlaying the politics of the US diplomatic assault against Bustani - reportedly backed by threats of non-payment of US dues, amounting to over a fifth of the Organisation's total budget - are concerns about the procedural legality of the removal decision. The damning US verdict on Bustani's performance was publicly set out by State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher on March 20, two days before a no-confidence vote, brought by Washington, was due to be considered by the OPCW's Executive Council: "The management of the Organisation...is beset by a set of problems that have resulted in the loss of confidence in the current Director. The loss of confidence is widespread among many countries of the world, and we've seen a variety of problems...including financial mismanagement, demoralisation of the Technical Secretariat staff, and what many believe are ill-considered initiatives. So the United States and others, given these serious concerns, don't believe the Organisation can continue to fulfil its primary mission of eliminating chemical weapons under its current leadership, and we have urged...the Director-General to resign for the good of the Organisation." Boucher refused to answer directly the question then posed to him - "Is your campaign against him related in any way to the OPCW's role in Iraq, or is it purely a question of management?" - stating only: "It's a question of how the Organisation operates. This is a very important organisation to us. We strongly supported the Chemical Weapons Convention...and making this organisation effective, and therefore we want it to be under...good management." Bustani's special assistant, Gordon Vachon, reacted to the US allegations the same day, noting: "The Director-General is very surprised by the charges levelled at him by the United States, which came pretty much without warning... The Director-General has done no wrong, as he sees it. He's got nothing to hide. He cannot simply step down when no reasons have been put forward that would warrant such a serious step". Vachon revealed that US intent to replace Bustani was first clearly signalled in a February 28 letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell calling for the Executive Council to press for "a change in management style". This was followed on March 6 by a State Department paper, made available to all states parties, listing 30 separate complaints about Bustani's stewardship. The no-confidence motion was carried on March 22 by a vote of 17 in favour, 5 against (Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran, Russia), with 18 abstentions and one member of the Executive Council absent. The Committee, however, is not formally empowered to dismiss the Director-General, and Bustani made clear his determination to fight on. State Department spokesperson Philip Reeker argued (March 22) that "the vote demonstrated that he can no longer effectively lead and therefore should resign". Reeker added that if necessary the US would request an extraordinary Special Session of the Convention's 145 states parties to decide the issue. On March 29, the bitterness of the dispute was evidenced by comments quoted on Reuters from an unnamed State Department official taking great exception to Bustani's assertion that his diplomatic approaches to Baghdad lay at the root of Washington's displeasure: "To get into the subject of Iraq was entirely unnecessary. Mr. Bustani claims we are pursuing his ouster in aid of our plan to invade Iraq and that he alone stands in the way... This of course is silly but is an example of his inflated ego and distorted sense of his responsibilities... He has refused to resign [after losing the no-confidence vote], contrary to what any rational person would have done in this situation". On March 26, Bustani had insisted that "there is a fundamental principle to defend - my position as Director of an international organisation should be immune to political interference and not passive to instructions from any government, however powerful". On April 9, an OPCW press release confirmed that an emergency session would met in The Hague on April 21: "One third of the member states of the Organisation...have concurred with the request of a member state to convene the First Special Session of the Conference of States Parties." Confusion swirled around the requirements of removing the Director-General. According to Vachon (April 9), two-thirds of the OPCW membership would have to support a motion for his dismissal, and "it is not at all sure they are going to achieve that". Other reports suggested a threshold of two-thirds of those present and voting. The difference is, of course, startling, the 48 votes finally recorded in favour amounting to 88% of those voting but only 33% of all states parties. On April 12, Bustani told the Valor newspaper in Brazil he thought his "days were numbered", adding: "The Americans aren't used to inspections in their companies, but the Convention...should be applied equally to all... [If I am removed] the new head will become a hostage of the decisions of the United States and the nations that support it". Extracts from the Director-General's April 21 address to the Special Session, attended by 113 member states, are reproduced below. The statement presented the stakes to delegates in dramatic terms: "The choices that you make during this session...will determine whether genuine multilateralism will survive or whether it will be replaced by unilateralism in a multilateral disguise. ... It is time to set priorities as they are perceived by you all and not just be a few so-called 'major players'. That is why I refuse to resign under pressure..." On April 19, Bustani had warned reporters of dire consequences if the US failed to set out detailed allegations against him during the closed-doors Special Session. If no such case was presented, he warned, "it is going to be a monstrosity. It will be the most terrible scenario for any international organisation". On April 21, according to reports, Ambassador Donald Mahley, head of the US delegation, was booed by a number of delegations for a seeming paucity of detail in his presentation. Mahley's address, however, insisted that the reasons for Bustani's ouster were all too clear: "The serious inadequacies and failings of the current leadership are known. ... The Executive Council of the OPCW has met twenty-eight times. At almost every...meeting, one of the principal topics of discussion...has been problems with the management of the Technical Secretariat. So when the Director-General claims he has no hint before February this year that there is dissatisfaction with his leadership, he is saying he is not listening. ... Many of the countries represented here today have served on the Executive Council. Certainly, in every regional group there are numerous colleagues who can provide ready examples of the Director-General's disdain for the executive Council, his polarising conduct, and his unwillingness to take into account their concerns. They can also tell you of unsuccessful efforts to obtain from the Director-General budget proposals that fell within the realm of political possibility, of arbitrary and capricious...practices, and of the Director-General's failure to match expenditure to income in a responsible way. They can also share with you the great difficulty the Council encountered last year in getting the clear, accurate information it needed to assess and deal with the Organisation's financial crisis. ... But I do not intend to go into greater detail about particular instances of how the Director-General has betrayed the trust and confidence we as states parties placed in him. The issue is not simply a matter if bookkeeping entries or management style. The problem is more fundamental. It is abdication of transparency, or responsibility, of judgement." Speaking hours before his fate was decided, Bustani told journalists that the "Convention does not allow for such a dismissal. ... We may be moving to a vote without any of the legal foundations ever being discussed." Leaving the conference hall after the vote, Bustani said simply: "I am out of a job. I am going back to the Foreign Service". On April 23, Bustani was quoted in the Correio Brazilienze as reflecting: "The United States has enormous firepower, but I am relieved that I did not cede to their pressures until the end... [I was the victim of] a summary dismissal... It was a lynching." The US reacted to the vote with tired relief. In the view of Ambassador Mahley (April 22): "The Organisation, frankly, has a lot of work in front of it now and we have an opportunity to get a fresh start...[and] for that we are grateful. We are sorry it had to end this way..." State Department spokesperson Eliza Koch (April 22) described the decision as "an essential first step in restoring stability and sound management to this very important organisation", adding that the United States "will work closely with other concerned member states to restore the Organisation to a sound financial footing and to overcome the other difficulties that it has faced in recent years". According to Under Secretary of State John Bolton, commenting in Moscow (April 22): "We are very pleased with the result... The Organisation was in crisis. It had inadequate financial resources, it had a huge range of activities it needed to undertake, and there was a real crisis in confidence with the top leadership...[which] could undermine the Chemical Weapons Convention itself." Iran, which voted against the motion, complained bitterly at the outcome (April 22): "It is a major blow to multilateralism. What we lost during this process was the confidence in the independence of the Director-General." Russia, which also voted to save Bustani, was equally unhappy, questioning both the politics and legality of the decision. According to Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexander Yakovenko (April 23): "Russia spoke against the removal of José Bustani and considers that he, at the post of Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat, did much to solve the questions of prohibiting and destroying chemical weapons, as well as of strengthening the regime provided by the Chemical Weapons Convention. The fact of Bustani's removal is by itself unprecedented because this convention does not envisage the possibility of early removal of the head of the OPCW from office. Thanks to the activities of José Bustani at this post, the OPCW has turned into an independent and authoritative international body which has become one of the most important mechanisms for arms control and disarmament." The President of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, said (April 22) he regretted "the decision that was taken" and which his country's delegation had vehemently opposed as it had "always expressed confidence in Ambassador Bustani". Reports in the Brazilian press on April 22 alleged that the US had agreed to pay the dues owed to the OPCW by some member states in return for their support. On April 23, an unnamed State Department official said there was "absolutely nothing" to the stories: "We have not put forward any money to pay anybody's arrears or given them any kind of financial assistance to pay their own bills". A number of states reportedly paid their arrears in the days or even hours before the vote, thus allowing them to participate. A detailed independent assessment of the controversy was circulated to delegates at the Special Session by Douglas Scott, President of the Canadian Markland Group for the Integrity of Disarmament Treaties. Scott's paper states (April 21): "In the face of extraordinary pressure, Mr. Bustani has steadfastly refused to resign. His determination is to be admired and is worthy of support. At stake is the multilateral nature of the machinery used for monitoring compliance with the Convention. The multilateral element is essential in order to ensure that the verification rules and procedures are applied equally to all member states with no preferential treatment. The office of Director-General represents the Convention's multilateral community. The US does not. ... Surely by now, it is a widely accepted principle that where sensitive issues need to be decided, such as the selection of inspection targets, the Director General must be expected to exercise his judgement independently and free of any undue influence. There should be little argument that such decisions ought to be made under quasi-judicial conditions. ... [T]he paper distributed by the US dated March 6, 2002, listing some thirty different complaints against Mr. Bustani, contains nothing that could be classified as legal grounds for his dismissal. Actions taken by a Director-General could become grounds for dismissal if he were guilty of corrupt practice, or if he were to disregard directions given to him by the Conference of the States Parties or the Executive Council, or if his actions exceeded his legal powers. Nothing in the US list of complaints has alleged behaviour of this nature. ... About one-quarter of the complaints put forward by the US point to problems whose source can be traced to an inadequate budget for the Organisation, for which the US itself is very much to blame." Scott concludes: "Countries that are supporting the US on this issue may think they are compelled to do so in order to save the OPCW from collapse. Admittedly, there would be additional expense if the US withdraws or reduces its financial contribution, and there could be many problems encountered in the search for new ways to operate the Organisation without the support and cooperation of the US. ... But it is hard to believe that these problems are insoluble. What appears to be needed is leadership from a group of states parties - possibly following the model of the New Agenda Coalition, which was so successful in preventing the collapse of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. The Organisation is currently facing a crucial test - whether it can withstand the machinations of a powerful member to gain control of its operations. ... With the US in control, it can be expected that the Organisation's activities would be seriously curtailed." Writing in The Guardian on April 16, British journalist George Monbiot described US strategy as a "coup...to unseat the man in charge of ridding the world of chemical weapons. If it succeeds, this will be the first time 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." On April 22, Trevor Findlay, Executive Director of the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC) in London described Monbiot's version of events as "one-sided and misleading". Findlay wrote: "While it is true that the US attempt to get rid of Bustani has been ham fisted and that the US is partly to blame for the state of the OPCW because of its failure to pay its dues, it is also true that the management and transparency of the Organisation leave a lot to be desired. The Organisation has been further damaged by the unseemly struggle by Mr. Bustani to hang on to the directorship." On April 20, The Guardian published a letter from 34 musicians, writers and celebrities - including Brian Eno, Bianca Jagger and Salman Rushdie - urging states parties to rally to the defence of the Director-General: "This action [by America] 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." Statement by José Bustani, April 21"Back in 1997, when I decided to accept the request of the Brazilian Government to submit my candidature for the position of Director-General of the OPCW, I considered it, and I still consider it, an honour to be granted the unique opportunity to contribute to the first ever truly global attempt to abolish an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. ... Countries possessing chemical weapons that embraced the Chemical Weapons Convention have been divesting themselves of those travesties of history because they are assured that stockpiles of those weapons existing elsewhere are also being destroyed, under a stringent verification regime. The Convention establishes no special treatment for countries with a large chemical industry. Developing countries, when they declare themselves ready to enhance international security by joining the Organisation, have, in their vast majority, little understanding of chemical weapons; yet, they immediately see the benefit in participating, through the greater access to technology and technical assistance to which they become entitled. ... Furthermore, the Convention requires us all to make every effort to extend its regime universally - with no exceptions. As a result, during my first five years as Director-General, no member state was considered 'more equal' than others. And I have never subscribed to the theory that 'equality' is proportional to the size of any one state's budgetary contribution. Those were the promises inherent in the Convention - as I saw them at the time, and as I continue to see them today. That was the basis of the 'vision' that I brought to the Organisation on my very first day on the job. That was the vision that was amply clear to all, and not challenged by anyone, when my term was extended by acclamation in May 2000, one year ahead of schedule. ... Of course I was always aware that the job of Director-General of the OPCW would not be an easy one. I knew that I was going to face considerable pressures, and that my integrity might be put to the test. I realised that immediately after I was elected Director-General, when I had to fight in order to put together a team of trusted colleagues, on the basis of their competence and ability, and not of the political pressures brought to bear upon me. I realised this again shortly thereafter, when one member state tried - unsuccessfully - to force me to provide it with copies of each and every inspection report. I realise it even more deeply now, when one member state is leading the campaign for my immediate departure from the OPCW, allegedly because of my 'management style'. Yet, I am as convinced now as I was then, that the Chemical Weapons Convention will survive only if the principles of genuine multilateralism, true fairness, and equal treatment are preserved. And those are the principles that I have been trying to uphold every day of the last five years. I am truly proud of the OPCW's achievements in those five years. I am proud of the staff of the Secretariat. ... I am proud of the unprecedented growth in the membership of the Organisation... I am proud that we have established a sound and impartial verification regime, and that we are fortunate to have inspectors who have placed impartiality, decency, and ethics above everything. ... I am proud of the more than 1,100 inspections we have conducted in more than 50 member states; and of the non-discriminatory and unbiased way in which we conducted them. I am proud of the proposal which is now before the Executive Council for the provision of effective and timely assistance to victims of chemical weapons attacks, including attacks by terrorists. And I am proud of the modest, yet extremely significant, effort we put into our international cooperation programmes... Against the backdrop of these achievements, I can only see the attack launched against me as an attack on the OPCW itself, and, in particular, on those key principles which have been guiding my work, and which have become the hallmark of my 'management style'. Indeed, the unprecedented effort that has been put into ensuring my dismissal suggests the intention to change much more at the OPCW than the personality of its Director-General, or his 'management style'. ... Those of you who have been closely following the work of the OPCW certainly realise what it is about my management style that appears to be causing discomfort in some quarters. I could have been just a figurehead, as some member states wanted. Instead I have chosen, as the Convention requires, to take my responsibilities seriously, amongst other things by being actively involved in the everyday work of the Organisation. I refused to defer to those individuals who some member states want to be in charge. Ironically enough, because I have stood in the way of decisions that would have established a double standard in the Organisation, I am now accused of being biased. What is bias for some, is in reality my commitment to 'equal treatment for all'. I insist that the scope of access for our inspectors should be the same in all countries. I also insist that states parties cannot pick and choose those areas which inspectors may or may not verify. I insist that the verification effort, in full accordance with the Convention, should be aimed at inspectable facilities, rather than at certain countries. I insist on measures that will ensure that OPCW inspectors verify those weapons and equipment which the OPCW must verify, rather than merely those which might be volunteered by a state party for verification. In other words, I trust, but I also verify, everywhere, in full accordance with the Convention. ... I am blamed for seeking Iraq's membership of the CWC, even though this effort is in full accordance with the decisions of the UN Security Council, and with the mandate issued to me by all of you, to ensure the Convention's universality without exception. Does dissatisfaction with my actions mean that the universality of the Convention should include some countries, but not others, not Iraq, for example? I am blamed for seeking to establish...a credible system to protect states parties from an attack, including a terrorist attack, with chemical weapons. Should as many as two thirds of member states remain defenceless against such a threat, while the ability of a small number of other states to protect themselves and their allies remains robust? I am blamed for holding out the OPCW's hand to the international community in its fight against terrorism, simply because the OPCW has unique expertise in chemical weapons to offer in this regard. Is that a crime? ... I am now reproached for fully funding in 2001 one single international cooperation programme which amounted to just 0.4% of the OPCW budget for that year, yet which meant a great deal to the many developing countries. ... Do member states seek to further reduce the international cooperation and assistance programmes at the OPCW, which at present account for a meagre 6% of its budget? Finally, I am blamed for wishing to keep all states parties informed of progress in the destruction of Russia's chemical weapons, and for suggesting that Russia's utilisation of international assistance be scrutinised by the international community. If those are my ill-conceived initiatives, then I plead guilty as charged. ... I will be frank - a major blow is being struck against the OPCW. And the perpetrators would have preferred it to take place behind closed doors. They were absolutely confident that they could move any piece on the global chessboard ad libitum, without consultation or explanation to the rest of the world and, in particular, to the rest of the Organisation's membership. This is why, in flagrant violation of the letter, not to mention the spirit, of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Brazilian government was unilaterally approached with the demand that I resign and be 'reassigned'. Much later, I was approached unilaterally with ultimatums to step down. And the campaign did not stop, even when a clear majority of the 41 members of the Executive Council declined to support the US 'no-confidence motion' requesting me to stand down. As I wrote to your Foreign Ministers, there is a more important and fundamental point to consider. Much more than the person of the Director-General...or even the OPCW itself, is at stake here. No Director-General, of any international organisation in history, has ever been dismissed during his or her term of office. Moreover, no Director-General should be dismissed without due process, without any evidence of malfeasance being produced by the accuser, and without, at the very least, an open discussion and an independent investigation of the allegations. ... The US draft decision, in fact, establishes a precedent whereby the Director-General or Secretary-General of any international organisation can be removed from office at any time during his or her tenure, simply because one member state, with or without other 'major contributors', doesn't like his or her 'management style', or has 'lost confidence' in him or her, whatever this might mean. ... Now let me say a few words to those who are concerned about the OPCW's survival, should one very important member state not pay its budgetary contribution to the Organisation. I fundamentally disagree with those who may think that it is better to surrender the OPCW to that member state, than to maintain a truly multilateral OPCW at minimal additional cost. I will never agree that the façade of multilateralism is more important than its substance. This would not be a compromise - it would be capitulation. ... 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. ... 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." Related material on Acronym website:Reports: US State Department daily briefing, March 19; Weapons chief rejects demand to quit, Associated Press, March 20; US wants chemical weapons chief out, Associated Press, March 20; Brazil defends chemical arms chief, Associated Press, March 20; US makes offer to Brazil for Bustani's resignation, Global Security Newswire, March 21; Head of chemical weapons monitor loses vote of confidence by Executive Council, Associated Press, March 22; Future of Bustani's tenure takes center stage, Global Security Newswire, March 22; Weapons chief refuses to step down, Associated Press, March 22; US threatens to seek ouster of arms control chief, Reuters, March 22; Brazil arms control chief says US interferes, Reuters, March 26; US confident of ousting chemical weapons chief, Reuters, March 29; US hopes to hold conference to oust Bustani, Global Security Newswire, April 1; The Failing Inspector, by Amy Smithson, New York Times, April 8; Chemical weapons Organisation will hold special session on leadership, Associated Press, April 9; Brazilian official accuses US of attempted coup in chemical weapons group, Associated Press, April 12; Chemical coup d'etat, by George Monbiot, The Guardian, April 16; US predicts head of chemical weapons monitoring group will be ousted, Associated Press, April 19; Chief of international chemical weapons watchdog in last stand against US ouster, Associated Press, April 19; Back Jose Bustani, letter in The Guardian, April 20; Statement by the Director-General at the Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties, April 21, OPCW website (http://www.opcw.org); Statement by Ambassador Donald Mahley, US Representative to the OPCW, Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties, April 21, OPCW website; Statement of Douglas Scott, President, The Markland Group, Special Meeting of OPCW States Parties, The Hague, April 21 (kindly provided by Mr. Scott); World arms control boss defies US bid to oust him, Reuters, April 21; US tries to oust chemical panel head, Associated Press, April 21; Letter by Trevor Findley, VERTIC, The Guardian, April 22; US fails to detail allegations against head of chemical weapons organisation, Associated Press, April 22; Govt, pleased with ousting of chemical arms chief, Reuters, April 22; Chemical weapons body sacks chief, BBC News Online, April 22; World chemical arms chief dismissed, Associated Press, April 22; US ousts Brazilian weapons chief, Associated Press, April 23; US official hails ouster of chemical weapons agency chief, Associated Press, April 23; Remarks by official spokesperson Alexander Yakovenko on the removal of Jose Bustani from the post of Director General of the Technical Secretariat of the OPCW, Russian Foreign Ministry transcript, April 23; Bustani loses vote and job, Global Security Newswire, April 23; Russia criticises US-led ouster of chemical weapons agency chief, Associated Press, April 24; The First Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention adjourns in The Hague, OPCW Press Release 35/2002, April 24. © 2002 The Acronym Institute. |