Ex-OPCW chief Jose Bustani reads Syria testimony that US, UK blocked at UN
AARON MATÉ·OCTOBER 5, 2020
SYRIA
At the UN Security Council, the US, UK, France and allies have blocked the
testimony of Jose Bustani, the OPCW’s first Director General, on the
chemical watchdog’s Syria cover-up scandal. The Grayzone has obtained
Bustani’s prepared statement and is publishing it in full.
Jose Bustani was invited to brief the Security Council on the OPCW’s
cover-up of an investigation into an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria
in April 2018. The US, UK, and France bombed Syria after accusing the Syrian
government of dropping toxic gas in Douma. OPCW inspectors later found
evidence that undermined the official narrative, but were censored by their
superiors under US pressure.
As the OPCW’s first Director General, Bustani experienced first-hand the
costs of challenging pro-war narratives. In 2002, he was personally
threatened by John Bolton and ousted as OPCW chief after he facilitated
inspections that stood in the way of the Bush administration’s drive to
invade Iraq.
In his comments, Bustani voices support for the OPCW inspectors and urges
the current Director General, Fernando Arias, to let them air their
suppressed evidence in a transparent manner.
“At great risk to themselves, [the inspectors] have dared to speak out
against possible irregular behaviour in your Organisation, and it is without
doubt in your, in the Organisation’s, and in the world’s interest that you
hear them out,” Bustani says. “Regardless of whether or not there is
substance to the concerns raised about the OPCW’s behaviour in the Douma
investigation, hearing what your own inspectors have to say would be an
important first step in mending the Organisation’s damaged reputation. The
dissenting inspectors are not claiming to be right, but they do want to be
given a fair hearing.”
TRANSCRIPT
Mr Chairman, Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, your excellencies, distinguished
delegates, ladies and gentlemen,
My name is José Bustani. I am honoured to have been invited to present a
statement for this meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the Syrian
chemical dossier and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons. As the OPCW’s first Director General, a position I held from 1997
to 2002, I naturally retain a keen interest in the evolution and fortunes of
the Organisation. I have been particularly interested in recent developments
regarding the Organisation’s work in Syria.
For those of you who are not aware, I was removed from office following a
US-orchestrated campaign in 2002 for, ironically, trying to uphold the
Chemical Weapons Convention. My removal was subsequently ruled to be illegal
by the International Labour Organisation’s Administrative Tribunal, but
despite this unpleasant experience the OPCW remains close to my heart. It is
a special Organisation with an important mandate. I accepted the position of
Director General precisely because the Chemical Weapons Convention was
non-discriminatory. I took immense pride in the independence, impartiality,
and professionalism of its inspectors and wider staff in implementing the
Chemical Weapons Convention. No State Party was to be considered above the
rest and the hallmark of the Organisation’s work was the even-handedness
with which all Member States were treated regardless of size, political
might, or economic clout.
Although no longer at the helm by this time, I felt great joy when the OPCW
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 “for its extensive efforts to
eliminate chemical weapons”. It was a mandate towards which I and countless
other former staff members had worked tirelessly. In the nascent years of
the OPCW, we faced a number of challenges, but we overcame them to earn the
Organisation a well-deserved reputation for effectiveness and efficiency,
not to mention autonomy, impartiality, and a refusal to be politicised. The
ILO decision on my removal was an official and public reassertion of the
importance of these principles.
More recently, the OPCW’s investigations of alleged uses of chemical weapons
have no doubt created even greater challenges for the Organisation. It was
precisely for this kind of eventuality that we had developed operating
procedures, analytical methods, as well as extensive training programmes, in
strict accordance with the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Allegations of the actual use of chemical weapons were a prospect for which
we hoped our preparations would never be required. Unfortunately, they were,
and today allegations of chemical weapons use are a sad reality.
It is against this backdrop that serious questions are now being raised over
whether the independence, impartiality, and professionalism of some of the
Organisation’s work is being severely compromised, possibly under pressure
from some Member States. Of particular concern are the circumstances
surrounding the OPCW’s investigation of the alleged chemical attack in
Douma, Syria, on 7 April 2018. These concerns are emanating from the very
heart of the Organisation, from the very scientists and engineers involved
in the Douma investigation.
In October 2019 I was invited by the Courage Foundation, an international
organisation that ‘supports those who risk life or liberty to make
significant contributions to the historical record’, to participate in a
panel along with a number of eminent international figures from the fields
of international law, disarmament, military operations, medicine, and
intelligence. The panel was convened to hear the concerns of an OPCW
official over the conduct of the Organisation’s investigation into the Douma
incident.
The expert provided compelling and documentary evidence of highly
questionable, and potentially fraudulent conduct in the investigative
process. In a joint public statement, the Panel was, and I quote, ‘unanimous
in expressing [its] alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation
of the alleged chemical attack in Douma’. The Panel further called on the
OPCW, ‘to permit all inspectors who took part in the Douma investigation to
come forward and report their differing observations in an appropriate forum
of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, in fulfilment of
the spirit of the Convention.’
I was personally so disturbed by the testimony and evidence presented to the
Panel, that I was compelled to make a public statement. I quote: “I have
always expected the OPCW to be a true paradigm of multilateralism. My hope
is that the concerns expressed publicly by the Panel, in its joint consensus
statement, will catalyse a process by which the Organisation can be
resurrected to become the independent and non-discriminatory body it used to
be.”
The call for greater transparency from the OPCW further intensified in
November 2019 when an open letter of support for the Courage Foundation
declaration was sent to Permanent Representatives to the OPCW to, ‘ask for
[their] support in taking action at the forthcoming Conference of States
Parties aimed at restoring the integrity of the OPCW and regaining public
trust.’
The signatories of this petition included such eminent figures as Noam
Chomsky, Emeritus Professor at MIT; Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Chair of the
Swedish Doctors for Human Rights; Coleen Rowley, whistle-blower and a 2002
Time Magazine Person of the Year; Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant
Secretary-General; and Film Director Oliver Stone, to mention a few.
Almost one year later, the OPCW has still not responded to these requests,
nor to the ever-growing controversy surrounding the Douma investigation.
Rather, it has hidden behind an impenetrable wall of silence and opacity,
making any meaningful dialogue impossible. On the one occasion when it did
address the inspectors’ concerns in public, it was only to accuse them of
breaching confidentiality. Of course, Inspectors – and indeed all OPCW staff
members – have responsibilities to respect confidentiality rules. But the
OPCW has the primary responsibility – to faithfully ensure the
implementation of the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention (Article
VIII, para 1).
The work of the Organisation must be transparent, for without transparency
there is no trust. And trust is what binds the OPCW together. If Member
States do not have trust in the fairness and objectivity of the work of the
OPCW, then its effectiveness as a global watchdog for chemical weapons is
severely compromised.
And transparency and confidentiality are not mutually exclusive. But
confidentiality cannot be invoked as a smoke screen for irregular behaviour.
The Organisation needs to restore the public trust it once had and which no
one denies is now waning. Which is why we are here today.
It would be inappropriate for me to advise on, or even to suggest how the
OPCW should go about regaining public trust. Still, as someone who has
experienced both rewarding and tumultuous times with the OPCW, I would like
to make a personal plea to you, Mr Fernando Arias, as Director General of
the OPCW. The inspectors are among the Organisation’s most valuable assets.
As scientists and engineers, their specialist knowledge and inputs are
essential for good decision making. Most importantly, their views are
untainted by politics or national interests. They only rely on the science.
The inspectors in the Douma investigation have a simple request – that they
be given the opportunity to meet with you to express their concerns to you
in person, in a manner that is both transparent and accountable.
This is surely the minimum that they can expect. At great risk to
themselves, they have dared to speak out against possible irregular
behaviour in your Organisation, and it is without doubt in your, in the
Organisation’s, and in the world’s interest that you hear them out. The
Convention itself showed great foresight in allowing inspectors to offer
differing observations, even in investigations of alleged uses of chemical
weapons (paras 62 and 66 of Part II, Ver. Annex). This right, is, and I
quote, ‘a constitutive element supporting the independence and objectivity
of inspections’. This language comes from Ralf Trapp and Walter Krutzsch’s
“A commentary on Verification Practice under the CWC”, published by the OPCW
itself during my time as DG.
Regardless of whether or not there is substance to the concerns raised about
the OPCW’s behaviour in the Douma investigation, hearing what your own
inspectors have to say would be an important first step in mending the
Organisation’s damaged reputation. The dissenting inspectors are not
claiming to be right, but they do want to be given a fair hearing. As one
Director General to another, I respectfully request that you grant them this
opportunity. If the OPCW is confident in the robustness of its scientific
work on Douma and in the integrity of the investigation, then it has little
to fear in hearing out its inspectors. If, however, the claims of evidence
suppression, selective use of data, and exclusion of key investigators,
among other allegations, are not unfounded, then it is even more imperative
that the issue be dealt with openly and urgently.
This Organisation has already achieved greatness. If it has slipped, it
nonetheless still has the opportunity to repair itself, and to grow to
become even greater. The world needs a credible chemical weapons watchdog.
We had one, and I am confident, Mr Arias, that you will see to it that we
have one again.
Thank you.
