THIS IS WHY BUSH WANTS BOLTON SO BAD - MORE DSM EVIDENCE

[BigBearJohn]

SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5052309,00.html

The war con artists protect their own: How nominee John Bolton intervened to illegally fire a diplomat who wanted to inspect rumors of WMD, and could have defused Bush's fixing of the facts - Buzzflash.com

John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani ``had to go,'' particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.

Bustani, who says he got a ``menacing'' phone call from Bolton at one point, was removed by a vote of just one-third of member nations at an unusual special session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), at which the United States cited alleged mismanagement in calling for his ouster.

The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an ``unacceptable violation'' of principles protecting international civil servants. The OPCW session's Swiss chairman now calls it an ``unfortunate precedent'' and Bustani a ``man with merit.''

[rog]

1. Bolton/Bustani articles from 2002, talking about all this.

I just posted this in another thread, but I think many folks might be interested in reading these articles. This was REALLY under the radar in '02 ... not a word in the US press, that I noticed.

.rog.

A Coup in The Hague
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/06/bustani_profile.html

Excerpt (great article):

Bustani says the first indications of Washington's displeasure became evident near the end of 2001. While he says US delegates never bothered to expand on their concerns, Bustani traces the shift to the influence of several hawkish officials in the Bush State Department, particularly Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton.

Bolton, who has in the past argued that the U.S. should exit the United Nations, was also one of the administration's most vocal critics of the International Criminal Court. His staunch opposition to virtually every major recent arms control initiative -- including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty -- and his enthusiastic endorsement of Washington's problem-plagued Star Wars missile defense system led Ian Williams of Foreign Policy in Focus to argue that putting Bolton in charge of disarmament is akin to letting "a pyromaniac have the run of a fireworks factory."

Bustani says US delegates and other officials from Washington had become increasingly frustrated by his insistence that the OPCW remain truly independent.

With Bolton's arrival at the State Department last year, those frustrations suddenly boiled to the surface.

"I therefore fell from grace with Washington," Bustani says. "And when dealing with people like Bolton, there is no room for dialogue. You just have to go."

"I was being expected to take orders from the US delegation, and to customize the implementation of the convention to the US demands," says Bustani from his home in The Hague. "I was expected to consult Washington on every single issue, which I refused to do."

Two articles by investigative reporter George Monbiot:

Chemical coup d'etat
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0%2C3604%2C685123%2C00.html

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.

-----snip-----

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.

Diplomacy US style (followup to previous article ... "behind the scenes of the coup")
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0%2C5673%2C689141%2C00.html

A week ago, the Washington Post revealed that the Pentagon had told the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, in the hope of undermining his credibility. When the CIA failed to discover any evidence of wrongdoing, the deputy defence secretary is reported to have "hit the ceiling".

-----snip-----

Yesterday evening, after a week of arm-twisting and secret meetings, the US government forced the departure of Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. As this column predicted last week, this is the first time that the head of an international organisation has been dismissed during his term in office. The tactics the US has deployed in the past few days to oust Bustani offer a fascinating insight into the way its diplomacy works.

On Friday, the US ambassador to the OPCW organised an illegal meeting with American members of the organisation's staff. He explained that he had arrived late as he had been trying to find a replacement for Mr Bustani (this is also an illegal manoeuvre). He told the meeting that the US had been encountering "great difficulty finding people of the right calibre" because no one wants "to be associated with a dying organisation". This was news to the staff, who had previously been told by the US that sacking Bustani would revive the OPCW. But the ambassador explained that if the replacement is "like Bustani we will say 'screw the organisation'. We'll dismantle our weapons independently and monitor them ourselves".

The US had promised that the directorship would pass to another Latin American. But the ambassador was kind enough to note that "Latin Americans are so characterised by sheer incompetence that they won't be able to make up their minds". He warned the meeting "if any of this gets out of this room, I'll kill the person responsible".

LOTS more in the articles above, and very interesting (and damning) in light of the Downing St. Minutes.

.rb.

[DistressedAmerican]

2. This Douchebag Is So Going Down. Bush Is Too Fucking Stupid

to cut his losses. It is pathalogical really. He it a pathological liar and can NEVER admit his failures. Since he can't admit them, he will never fix them.

Fine with me. We'll fix them for his sorry, miserable ass!

[corbett]

4. Awesome Graphix!

I caught an online story about all of this on a mainstream media news site. Shocking!

Please share the following URL with everyone:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050601/the_key_to_impeachment.php

[annabanana]

3. Let's see...

This guy was instrumental in stopping the count in Florida..
Interefered in the UN's search for chemical weapons...
Intimidated people to try and get "acceptable" intelligence

And was one of the FOUNDERS of the PNAC...

MY question is,, why didn't they just conspire to make THIS guy president. Or maybe he IS president, (rather than the assumed Cheney)

[Straight Shooter]

5. Dammit, annabanana, you just scared me!

Bolton and not Cheney?

Creeeepy.

[annabanana]

6. you have to admit...

He's been right out front on each step that PNAC has taken...pushing, pushing..