|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
CWC: War of Words Intensifies as OPCW Leader Fights to Save Job By David Ruppe U.S. officials have been trying to depose Brazilian Jose Bustani from his position as director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The organization implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered force in 1997, banning chemical weapons, and to which the United States and 144 other countries are party. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said last month U.S. opposition stems from Bustani’s management of the organization, which Boucher said has resulted in the international community losing confidence in Bustani. U.S. officials otherwise were fairly tight-lipped in public forums about their case against Bustani until recently, as a paper they had prepared and provided to the OPCW’s Executive Council last month was circulated publicly. The “Nonpaper” The so-called “nonpaper,” a version of which the State Department has now published on its web site, provides an extensive list of criticisms of Bustani, ranging from his “polarizing and confrontational conduct” and “mismanagement issues” to his “advocacy of inappropriate roles for the OPCW.” Bustani’s performance has deteriorated to the point where “effective implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention — and political and financial support for the OPCW — is in jeopardy,” it said. Last spring, the U.S. document said, Bustani threatened punitive industry inspections in five nations that had collectively complained to him about financial and verification issues. “The director general sought to use the inspection regime that is at the very heart of the CWC for political ends, as a punitive tool to coerce member states into acceding to his demands,” it said. Effective implementation of the treaty “will require departure of the director general without delay,” the document said. Bustani survived a no-confidence vote of parties on the OPCW’s executive committee last month, but the United States is planning another vote in a few weeks at a special conference of all parties, and experts believe the United States will have the votes to oust Bustani. At least half the 145 treaty parties need to be present and a two-thirds majority of those voting are needed to approve a change. Rebuttal Bustani’s spokesman Gordon Vachon this week e-mailed to advocacy organizations and reporters a 13-page rebuttal to the U.S. charges, which said “unsubstantiated allegations” were being levied against Bustani. “Regrettably, the U.S. nonpaper has now found its way into the public domain, which only adds more fuel to the fire. It does, however, provide an opportunity for the director general to insert his own commentary into the public domain, in the hope that a more balanced assessment will result,” wrote Vachon in his e-mail. The rebuttal said insufficient U.S. funding of the organization, including approximately $1.4 million in U.S. arrears, has been a factor preventing the organization from fully implementing its program of work. “Inspections cost money,” it said. U.S. Underpayment Anticipated reductions in inspections this year, it said, are “the direct result of underbudgeting of the OPCW and of anticipated nonpayments by some member states,” the rebuttal said. Bustani’s rebuttal said none of the organization’s other principal contributors has expressed “any concerns with regard to the nature of his relationship with them” and noted the United States had supported the Bustani’s reappointment in May 2000. It added, “it is difficult to understand the allegation by the United States of financial mismanagement, since the chief financial and administrative officers … through to today, have been successive American directors nominated by the United States government.” Bustani is not alone in criticizing U.S. activities regarding the treaty. A 72-page report, prepared by the Monterey Institute of International Studies’ Center for Nonproliferation Studies and other nongovernmental experts, said “although the United States played a leadership role during the CWC negotiations, it has set a poor example during the implementation phase.” The United States was criticized for including unilateral exemptions to treaty provisions in its domestic implementing legislation, including a provision enabling the president to refuse a challenge inspection on national security grounds, submitting its industry declaration three years late and cutting off financial support for Russian chemical demilitarization (see GSN, March 20). The report further said United States has accused Iran of violating the treaty, but has not called for a challenge inspection under the treaty to validate its allegation, which the report said “has weakened the credibility and deterrent value of this key verification measure.” Despite those criticisms, the United States appears to have good reasons for being upset with Bustani, said the report’s editor Jonathan Tucker, director of Monterey’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program. “I think there is plenty of ground for discontent. For one thing, he is a real prima donna,” said Tucker. Tucker also said he has heard, though not independently verified, credible evidence of financial mismanagement. The U.S. position, he said, is that “until OPCW gets its house in order, it won’t be in position to implement a challenge inspection.” A senior State Department official said while the United States has not paid its full assessment for this year, 75 percent of the organization’s budget has not been paid, with other countries withholding as well. The OPCW’s funding troubles stem, however, from mismanagement, he said. “He has mismanaged and overspent vast amounts of money,” said the official. “The organization is underfunded because of bad management.” The official also said Bustani’s U.S. employees have been mistreated. “There are some Americans working in the organization, most of whom he’s gotten rid of,” he said. “This guy is virulently anti-American,” he said. Any Underlying Grievances? Observers show some uncertainty about whether a single issue has triggered the U.S. actions against Bustani. While “mismanagement” is a central issue, “some of it has to do with defining the role of the organization and Mr. Bustani’s attempts to push it into areas and assume responsibilities that may or may not be appropriate for it,” said Michael Moodie, president of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Washington. Moodie, who contributed to the Monterey report, cited Bustani’s perceived advocacy of eliminating of the Australia Group export control regime and his efforts to encourage Iraq to accede to the treaty and submit itself to the required inspections, perhaps as an alternative to U.N. inspections. The Australia Group is an informal arrangement of 30 countries that agree to restrict certain technology exports to states that might use them to develop a chemical or biological weapons capability (see GSN, Oct. 2, 2001). Bustani endorsed a position favored by one bloc of “radical, nonaligned states” and opposed by the United States and other Western nations, said Moodie. Allowing possibly less intrusive, non-U.N. inspectors into Iraq, some experts say, could undermine the U.S. case for military action against Iraq. “I think suggesting there is an alternative using OPCW assets is both politically incorrect and inappropriate given the history here,” Moodie said. “I think they feel that he has politicized his own office to an extent that is inappropriate, is trying to create the [OPCW] Secretariat as a power unto itself … rather than to serve the real members of the treaty,” he said. U.S. officials may also be responding to a perception that OPCW inspections against U.S. facilities last year were too aggressive and intrusive, he said (see related GSN story, today). Apparently aware of speculation about U.S. motives, U.S. Ambassador Donald Mahley in a March 19 statement to the OPCW Executive Council said emphatically the United States is not motivated by a lack of commitment to chemical weapons disarmament, citing, for instance, more than $10 billion he said was spent on chemical disarmament. He said the United States and other states “have been troubled by the direction which Director General Bustani has taken the OPCW through ongoing financial mismanagement, demoralization of the Technical Secretariat staff and ill-considered initiatives.” Advocate Without Authority? Bustani is not talking to reporters on the matter, his spokesman Vachon said. In an e-mail to GSN, though, Vachon said Bustani “cannot help but wonder, however, if the real reason is that he is too evenhanded in the eyes of some, by applying the convention in as nondiscriminatory way as he possibly can.” Bustani’s rebuttal said he cannot choose inspection targets himself, that he is one of four officials required to approve inspection plans, and that until recently three of the four branch heads in the verification division of the organization were from Western Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United States, and the head of the industry verification branch is an American. The rebuttal conceded the United States was subject to a “considerable number” of inspections in 2001, but said they were “a logical consequence of the three-year delay in its submission of the chemical industry declaration.” Bustani has suggested allowing Iraq to accede to the CWC, but he said it was only a suggestion, and that it might be a way to persuade Iraq to allow chemical weapons inspections to resume. In any case, the rebuttal said, Bustani “cannot impose anything on either the Security Council or Iraq, for that matter.” Regardless of whether all the U.S. claims are valid, Monterey’s Tucker said Bustani should step down because he has apparently lost the support of the OPCW’s major funders. Of the 40 executive council members, 17 voted to approve the U.S. no-confidence measure and they accounted for 75 percent of the organization’s funding, Tucker said. Of the rest, 18 mostly Latin American members abstained and five voted for Bustani: Cuba, China, Russia, Brazil and Iran. “I think in this case the [U.S.] motive is to strengthen the convention,” he said. “I have a feeling Congress will refuse to pay all of that money before he leaves,” said the senior State Department official.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
