Dave,

The attempted coup by the US is nothing short of power arrogance or better
still, arrogance of power from George Bush and his clique of short-sighted
unilateralists who only want everything in this world their way. It will
really be a surprised if Tony says to his master at least for once, this
time, that enough is enough. The world is paying the price of Mr bush's
dubious election as President of the US.

Thanks for the forward.

The yoke of oppression must be shaterred!

BMK


>From: Dave Manneh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Chemical coup d'etat:The US wants to depose the diplomat who
>        could take away its
>Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:28:17 +0100
>
>================================================
>I wonder when the world would be brave enough to tell the Yanks
>to just lay off and learn a little bit of humility.
>I have had nuff of their nonsense and selfishness.
>
>Dave
>=================================================
>
>FROM THE GUARDIAN
>Tuesday April 16, 2002
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4394862,00.html
>-------------------------
>
>Chemical coup d'etat
>The US wants to depose the diplomat who could take away its
>pretext for war with Iraq
>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 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
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface
>at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
>[log in to unmask]
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~