[Bach]

Relevanter is hier wat we niet mochten horen:

“My name is José Bustani. I am honoured to
have been invited to present a statement for this
meeting of the Security Council to discuss the
Syrian chemical dossier and the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
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
organization. I have been particularly interested in
recent developments regarding the organization’s
work in Syria.
“For those who are not aware, I was removed
from office, following a United States-orchestrated
campaign in 2002, for — ironically — trying to
uphold the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
My removal was subsequently ruled to be illegal
by the Administrative Tribunal of the International
Labour Organization (ILO), but despite that
unpleasant experience, the OPCW remains close
to my heart. It is a special organization 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 organization’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 then, 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 organization a well-deserved
reputation for effectiveness and efficiency, not to
mention autonomy, impartiality and a refusal to be
politicized. The ILO’s decision on my removal was
an official and public reassertion of the importance
of those principles.
“More recently, the OPCW’s investigations of
alleged uses of chemical weapons have no doubt
created even greater challenges for the organization.
It is precisely for that kind of eventuality that we
had developed operating procedures, analytical
methods and extensive training programmes,
in strict accordance with the provisions of the
Chemical Weapons Convention. Allegations of the
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-weapon use are a sad reality.
“It is against that backdrop that serious
questions are now being raised about whether the
independence, impartiality and professionalism
of some of the organization’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. Those concerns
are emanating from the heart of the OPCW, from
the very scientists and engineers involved in the
Douma investigation.
“In October 2019, I was invited by the Courage
Foundation, an international organization 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 organization’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 ‘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 said then,
‘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 organization 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 the 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 that petition included
such eminent figures as Noam Chomsky, Institute
Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology; Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Chair of
Swedish Doctors for Human Rights; Coleen Rowley,
whistle-blower and 2002 Time Magazine Person
of the Year; Hans-Christof von Sponeck, former
United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and
film director Oliver Stone, to mention a few.
“Almost one year later, the OPCW has still not
responded to that request, or 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 as set forth in article VIII,
paragraph 1.
“The work of the Organization 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.
“Transparency and confidentiality are not
mutually exclusive, but confidentiality cannot be
invoked as a smokescreen for irregular behaviour.
The organization 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 you, or even
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 organization’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 rely only 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 — and at great risk
to themselves. They have dared to speak out against
possible irregular behaviour in the organization,
and it is undoubtedly in your, the Organization’s
and the world’s interests that you hear them out.
“The Convention itself showed great
foresight in allowing inspectors to offer differing
observations, even during investigations of alleged
uses of chemical weapons, pursuant to paragraph
62 of Part II of the Verification Annex to the CWC.
This right is “a constitutive element supporting
the independence and objectivity of inspections”.
This language comes from The Chemical Weapons
Convention: A Commentary, edited by Walter
Krutzsch, Ralf Trapp et al., on verification practices
under the CWC, which was published by the OPCW
itself during my time as Director General.
“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 organization’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 in Douma and in
the integrity of the investigation, then it has little
to fear in hearing out its inspectors. If, however,
the claims of suppression of evidence, 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.
“The OPCW has already achieved greatness.
It if has slipped, it nevertheless retains 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.”