As for other complaints, a former senior policy officer employed by OPCW has written
“ I have reviewed carefully the US allegations against Mr. Bustani, and I recall the circumstances of some of the facts mentioned there. I do not, however, find any evidence of fault in Mr. Bustani’s leadership of the OPCW which could be the basis of serious accusations justifying such an attack on him by the US. “[2]
V. WOULD TERMINATION BE LEGAL?
Even if there were a widespread feeling from the delegates that, all things considered, Mr. Bustani should be dismissed if he refuses to resign, there is serious doubt as to whether the Conference would be legally entitled to terminate his appointment. It appears that the US intends to take the position that the Conference has the right to dismiss Mr. Bustani on the grounds that it is the organ that appointed him – arguing that what the Conference can do, it can also undo. Specifically, the US has let it be known that it intends to rely on the provision in the Convention empowering the Conference to appoint the Director-General – arguing that the reverse is true by implication:
The Director General shall be appointed by the Conference on the recommendation of the Executive Council for a term of four years, renewable for one further term, but not thereafter.
(Article VIII. Paragraph 43)
“ I have reviewed carefully the US allegations against Mr. Bustani, and I recall the circumstances of some of the facts mentioned there. I do not, however, find any evidence of fault in Mr. Bustani’s leadership of the OPCW which could be the basis of serious accusations justifying such an attack on him by the US. “[2]
V. WOULD TERMINATION BE LEGAL?
Even if there were a widespread feeling from the delegates that, all things considered, Mr. Bustani should be dismissed if he refuses to resign, there is serious doubt as to whether the Conference would be legally entitled to terminate his appointment. It appears that the US intends to take the position that the Conference has the right to dismiss Mr. Bustani on the grounds that it is the organ that appointed him – arguing that what the Conference can do, it can also undo. Specifically, the US has let it be known that it intends to rely on the provision in the Convention empowering the Conference to appoint the Director-General – arguing that the reverse is true by implication:
The Director General shall be appointed by the Conference on the recommendation of the Executive Council for a term of four years, renewable for one further term, but not thereafter.
(Article VIII. Paragraph 43)