Was Bustani Ouster Prelude to Iraq War?
June 10, 2005
By: Jim Mullins
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
The rationales the Bush administration used to promote the Iraq
war as necesary to counteract an imminent threat from Iraq have
fallen by the wayside. None of the commissions or congressional
investigations have gone beyond the facile conclusions that "mistakes
were made" or that the intelligence was "dead wrong."
No official who gave the orders or held the responsibility has
been named. President Bush took his re-election as a referendum
on his previous policies, implying that we should move on.
But unanswered questions hang in the air. Days before Tony Blair's
re-election, information surfaced that Britain's attorney general
had given legal advice that war without a second Security Council
resolution would be illegal aggression, but he reversed his opinion
after a meeting with, and pressure from, Bush Counsel Alberto
Gonzales.
Soon after, the "Downing Street memo" leak showed that
in April 2002 Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq. And in
July 2002, U.S. and British intelligence officials stated that
"the facts were being fixed around the policy."
John Bolton's nomination as U.N. representative has aroused misgivings.
"Deep Throat" has outed himself, reminding us of the
Watergate scandal. George McGovern (target of the Watergate burglary
that led to President Nixon's resignation, avoiding impeachment)
and Daniel Ellsberg of "Pentagon Papers" fame have called
for insiders to expose the lies and deception that led to the
Iraqi invasion.
John Bolton was the undersecretary for arms control and international
security affairs. His actions -- denigrating all international
institutions other than those controlled by the U.S., abrogating
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, disowning the International
Criminal Court Convention signed by Bill Clinton and blocking
verification of proposals to be added to the Convention on Biological
and Chemical Weapons -- make one wonder if he thought it was his
mission to destroy the Arms Control and International Security
Agency that his job required him to support.
Correspondent Charles J. Hanley has done a public service in
his investigative report for The Associated Press revisiting Bolton's
drive to have Jose Bustani fired in 2002 as director of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Bustani had an outstanding record leading the U.N. organization
dedicated to abolishing chemical weapons. He had overseen the
destruction of more than 3 million chemical weapons and had increased
the number of signatory countries from 87 to 145. He was re-elected
to a five year term in 2000. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
had described his record as "very impressive" in a personal
letter.
Bustani and Bush should have been on the same page, for Bustani
had planned to persuade Iraq to submit to OPCW inspections. The
U.N. would have had the moral authority and worldwide support
to force compliance. Yet the U.S., led by John Bolton, immediately
attempted to have Bustani fired.
When the organization refused to fire Bustani at an executive
meeting, the U.S. threatened to withold its dues. Bolton had a
special meeting called and raised the ante by brandishing a U.S.
pullout unless Bustani was fired. Great Britain piled on and Bustani
was voted out.
The U.N. tribunal set up to mediate personnel issues decided
the U.S. accusations were vague and the dismissal unlawful; it
awarded Bustani back pay and $69,000 in damages.
One could leave it there -- unless you connect the dots. When
Bolton began his campaign to oust Bustani, the Bush administration
had already decided in secret to attack Iraq; two weeks after
Bush and Blair met in April 2002 Bustani had been driven out.
Obviously they didn't want the U.N. group mucking around in Iraq
looking for the chemical and biological weapons, which they had
every reason to believe had been destroyed, and losing the selling
point they needed to strike fear in Congress and in the minds
of American citizens.
Bush stated in his latest press conference that the United Nations
should work to "regain the American people's respect."
Judging from Bolton's actions in trashing treaties, impeding peace
negotiations with Iran, North Korea and the one success -- Libya
-- that he tried to obstruct, it seems that Bolton's nomination
to be U.N. representative was the ultimate disrespect of the United
Nations and its members.
Jim Mullins is a senior fellow at the Center for International
Policy in Washington, D.C., and a resident of Delray Beach.