Many of the issues raised by the US in its list of complaints are of a nature that could be dealt with by the Executive Council, which is entitled to give the Director General any directions it sees fit, in which case he would be obliged to carry them out. Referral of outstanding problems to a committee of the Executive Council was indeed proposed in a motion introduced by Brazil immediately following the defeat of the US motion of non-confidence. The US, with the support of Canada and the western bloc, voted against the motion and it was defeated.
It is significant that Canada’s explanation for supporting the US offers only one reason, namely the importance of avoiding a long and damaging leadership debate. This statement, in its context, can only mean that Canada believes that US support for the Director General is essential and that the Convention cannot be administered except on terms acceptable to the US.
Certainly, there would be many problems to be faced as a result of outvoting the US and incurring its ongoing hostility. Indeed, a recent report in the New York Times indicates that the US is planning to discontinue its financial contributions to the Organization altogether unless Bustani is terminated. This would be serious, but the alternative is worse. Capitulating to US pressure would solidify and greatly extend the degree of control that the US exercises over the verification and compliance operations under the Convention.
* Douglas Scott is a retired lawyer living in Ancaster, Ontario. He is the president of The Markland Group. The opinions expressed are his.
Markland Group Paper
Reprinted with permission of The Markland Group
e-mail: marklandgroup@hwcn.org
web site: http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg
Note: This article originally appeared in The Hamilton Spectator on 19 April 2002
(p. A.15) under the title: Canada Oppose U.S. Efforts to Oust Bustani;
By Douglas Scott*
It is significant that Canada’s explanation for supporting the US offers only one reason, namely the importance of avoiding a long and damaging leadership debate. This statement, in its context, can only mean that Canada believes that US support for the Director General is essential and that the Convention cannot be administered except on terms acceptable to the US.
Certainly, there would be many problems to be faced as a result of outvoting the US and incurring its ongoing hostility. Indeed, a recent report in the New York Times indicates that the US is planning to discontinue its financial contributions to the Organization altogether unless Bustani is terminated. This would be serious, but the alternative is worse. Capitulating to US pressure would solidify and greatly extend the degree of control that the US exercises over the verification and compliance operations under the Convention.
* Douglas Scott is a retired lawyer living in Ancaster, Ontario. He is the president of The Markland Group. The opinions expressed are his.
Markland Group Paper
Reprinted with permission of The Markland Group
e-mail: marklandgroup@hwcn.org
web site: http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg
Note: This article originally appeared in The Hamilton Spectator on 19 April 2002
(p. A.15) under the title: Canada Oppose U.S. Efforts to Oust Bustani;
By Douglas Scott*