[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Monbiot / A War Against the Peacemaker / Apr 18

[Margaret E. Kosal]

>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:02:27 -0700
>From: ZNet Commentaries <sysop at zmag.org>
>
>==================================
>
>ZNet Commentary
>A War Against the Peacemaker April 18, 2002
>By George  Monbiot
>
>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 
>two 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 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 remarkable 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", "demoralization" 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 
>19th, the US proposed a vote of no-confidence in Mr Bustani. It lost. So 
>it then did something unprecedented in the history of multilateral 
>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 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 United States first 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.