Furthermore, there is no provision in the Convention that allows for dismissal of a Director General during his term of office.
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. Just over half the complaints are of this type. 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 the western bloc, voted against the motion and it was defeated. A plausible explanation as to why the US opposed the motion would be that the US very likely had already attempted, without success, to persuade the Executive Council to address its complaints and to adopt policy rulings that would require the Director General to take action in accordance with US agenda. It could be, that having failed in the Council, the US is now attempting to achieve its ends by other means.
About one-quarter of the complaints put forward by the US point to problems whose source can be traced to an inadequate budget for the Organization, for which the US itself is very much to blame. At the meeting of the Conference of the States Parties in May 2001, it was apparent that a large majority of the delegates favoured a substantial increase in the budget, but the US insisted on a figure of 61.9 million euros. Since decisions in the Council are almost always made by consensus, the US figure had to be adopted.
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. Just over half the complaints are of this type. 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 the western bloc, voted against the motion and it was defeated. A plausible explanation as to why the US opposed the motion would be that the US very likely had already attempted, without success, to persuade the Executive Council to address its complaints and to adopt policy rulings that would require the Director General to take action in accordance with US agenda. It could be, that having failed in the Council, the US is now attempting to achieve its ends by other means.
About one-quarter of the complaints put forward by the US point to problems whose source can be traced to an inadequate budget for the Organization, for which the US itself is very much to blame. At the meeting of the Conference of the States Parties in May 2001, it was apparent that a large majority of the delegates favoured a substantial increase in the budget, but the US insisted on a figure of 61.9 million euros. Since decisions in the Council are almost always made by consensus, the US figure had to be adopted.