De Commerciele Massamedia 192

'from 2002

This message is available online at
http://www.WantToKnow.info/war/iraq_war_media


"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."
-- U.K.'s respected newspaper The Guardian on manipulation leanding to
Iraq War, April 16, 2002


Dear friends,

The two eye-opening major media articles below were published in April
2002, a year before the start of the Iraq war. These incredibly revealing
news articles provide powerful information demonstrating how the U.S.
government blatantly manipulated the United Nations to set the stage for
the Iraq war. Yet as the media chose to seriously downplay this key move,
to this day very few know anything about it.

The first article, from the respected British newspaper The Guardian,
describes how Jose Bustani ˆ the highly successful United Nations
inspector of weapons of mass destruction at the time ˆ had his position
threatened by the U.S. government, and the shady reasons behind it. The
article from the New York Times gives the final result ˆ Bustani was
removed by a UN vote with almost as many abstentions as votes in favor. If
the U.S. had not forced out this highly praised man from his post, the Iraq
War might never have happened.

Notice that the Times fails to go into any depth about what really happened
or its consequences. How sad that no major media media besides The Guardian
was willing to discuss the implications of this highly manipulative act.
The media is clearly complicit in the Iraq war manipulation and cover-up.
For more highly revealing information on major media manipulations, click
here. Thanks for caring, and please help to spread the word.

With best wishes,
Fred Burks for PEERS and the WantToKnow.info Team
Former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton


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
Guardian

Tuesday April 16, 2002

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.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E0D91E3FF930A15757C0A9649C8B63

Published on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 in the New York Times
U.S. Forces Out Head of Chemical Arms Agency
by Marlise Simons

THE HAGUE, April 22 ˜ The United States succeeded today in ousting the
director of the global agency charged with ridding the world of chemical
weapons after an intense diplomatic campaign that made a number of
countries uncomfortable.

José M. Bustani, a Brazilian diplomat who was unanimously re-elected last
year as the director general of the 145-nation Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, was voted out of office today after
refusing repeated demands by the United States that he step down because of
his "management style." No successor has been selected.

"I clearly made some people in Washington very uncomfortable because I was
too independent," Mr. Bustani said afterward. "They want somebody more
obedient."

The American motion to fire Mr. Bustani was approved by 48 nations, while 7
voted against and 43 abstained. Most European nations voted with the United
States, except for France, which abstained. Mexico, one of the countries
that voted no, called the maneuver "illegal" because there was no provision
in the rules to dismiss the director general.

Diplomats said the many abstentions reflected the unease of a number of
countries over the action. They said it had opened the door further for
other international bodies to come under attack.

The United States, which is responsible for 22 percent of the agency's
budget, had threatened to cut off funding until Mr. Bustani left.

"I think a lot of people swallowed this because they thought it was better
for Bustani to be removed than have the U.S. pull out and see the
organization collapse," said one European diplomat at the meeting.

The firing of Mr. Bustani follows the removal last week of Robert Watson, a
British-born climatologist who had been outspoken on the threat of global
warming, as the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
He was removed after pressure from Washington and at least one American oil
company.

Mr. Bustani said that American officials approached him in late February,
asking him to resign, but not to make the request public. "They said they
did not like my management style, but they said they were not prepare to
elaborate," he said in an interview.

Several weeks later, the State Department circulated a lengthy paper among
members of the group and dispatched envoys to a number of capitals to
secure enough votes to fire Mr. Bustani. The paper accuses him of
confrontational and abrasive conduct and poor administrative and financial
management. American officials also said Mr. Bustani had taken some
"ill-considered initiatives," without consulting with the United States and
others.

"An effective director general needs to consult with member states, instead
of launching initiatives," said an American official.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0423-01.htm - If link to NY Times
fails


Note: For more highly revealing information on major media manipulations, click here. And for a highly decorated U.S. general's essay on how the public is often manipulted into war, click here.


Final Note: WantToKnow.info believes it is important to balance disturbing cover-up information with inspirational writings which call us to be all that we can be and to work together for positive change. Please visit our Inspiration Center at http://www.WantToKnow.info/inspirational for an abundance of uplifting material.


See our archive of revealing news articles at http://www.WantToKnow.info/indexnewsarticles


Your tax-deductible donations, however large or small, help greatly to support this important work.
To make a donation by credit card, check, or money order: http://www.WantToKnow.info/donationswtk

Explore these empowering websites coordinated by the nonprofit PEERS network:
http://www.momentoflove.org - Every person in the world has a heart
http://www.WantToKnow.info - Reliable, verifiable information on major cover-ups
http://www.inspiringcommunity.org - Building a Global Community for All
http://www.weboflove.org - Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all
http://insightcourse.net - The Insight Course: Best of the Internet all in one free course
Educational websites promoting transformation through information and inspiration

To reply to this message, visit http://www.WantToKnow.info/contactus.php
To subscribe to or unsubscribe from the WantToKnow.info list (one email every few days):
http://www.WantToKnow.info/subscribe '