Statement by the Director-General at the Special Session of the
Conference of the States Parties

21 April 2002

Mr Chairman,
Excellencies,
Distinguished delegates,

1. Back in 1997, when I decided to accept the request of the Brazilian
Government to submit my candidature for the position of Director-General
of the OPCW, I considered it, and I still consider it, an honour to be
granted the unique opportunity to contribute to the first EVER TRULY
global attempt to abolish an entire category of weapons of mass
destruction.

2. But more than anything, I decided to run for the post of Director-
General because the Chemical Weapons Convention represents the
international community's biggest ever achievement in the area of
disarmament and non-proliferation. It is the first and only truly non-
discriminatory multilateral disarmament treaty in existence. it is a
treaty which places equal responsibilities on, and gives equal rights to,
all States Parties.

3. Countries possessing chemical weapons that embraced the Chemical
Weapons Convention have been divesting themselves of those travesties of
history because they are assured that stockpiles of those weapons
existing elsewhere are also being destroyed, under a stringent
verification regime. The Convention establishes no special treatment for
countries with a large chemical industry. Developing countries, when they
declare themselves ready to enhance international security by joining the
Organization, have, in their vast majority, little understanding of
chemical weapons; yet, they immediately see the benefit in participating,
through the greater access to technology and technical assistance to
which they become entitled. Indeed, the Convention declares itself to be
in favour of the broadest possible cooperation among States Parties in
respect of peaceful uses of chemistry. Furthermore, the Convention
requires us all to make every effort to extend its regime universally
with n!
o exceptions. As a result, during my first five years as Director-
General, no Member State was considered more equal than others. And I
have never subscribed to the theory that equality is proportional to the
size of any one state's budgetary contribution.

4. Those were the promises inherent in the Convention, as I saw them at
the time, and as I continue to see them today. That was the basis of the
vision that I brought to the Organisation on my very first day on the
job. That was the vision that was amply clear to all, and not challenged
by anyone, when my term was extended by acclamation in May 2000, one year
ahead of schedule. That was the vision that I vowed to uphold back in
1997, and that is the vision that I intend to keep intact as long as I
remain Director-General. Yet if I am to believe the various allegations
of my "ill-conceived initiatives" that vision is now being rejected by
some members of this Organisation.

5. Of course I was always aware that the job of Director-General of the
OPCW would not be an easy one. I knew that I was going to face
considerable pressures, and that my integrity might be put to the test. I
realised that immediately after I was elected Director-General, when I
had to fight in order to put together a team of trusted colleagues, on
the basis of their competence and ability, and not of the political
pressures brought to bear upon me. I realised this again shortly
thereafter, when one Member State tried unsuccessfully to force me to
provide it with copies of each and every inspection report. I realise it
even more deeply now, when one Member State is leading the campaign for
my immediate departure from the OPCW, allegedly because of my "management
style". Yet, I am as convinced now as I was then, that the Chemical
Weapons Convention will survive only if the principles of genuine
multilateralism, true fairness, and equal treatment are preserved. And
those are !
the principles that I have been trying to uphold every day of the last
five years.

6. I am truly proud of the OPCW's achievements in those five years. I am
proud of the staff of the Secretariat. Member States should be grateful
to every one of those 500 hard-working professionals for what the OPCW
has been able to accomplish. I am proud of the unprecedented growth in
the membership of the Organisation, which is the clearest evidence of the
respect for the OPCW amongst its States Parties, as well as amongst the
ever-dwindling number of States not party. I am proud that we have
established a sound and impartial verification regime, and that we are
fortunate to have inspectors who have placed impartiality, decency, and
ethics above everything. Their loyalty is to the Organisation, and not to
individual Member States. I am proud of the more than 1,100 inspections
we have conducted in more than 50 Member States; and of the non-
discriminatory and unbiased way in which we conducted them. I am proud of
the proposal which is now before the Executive Council for the!
provision of effective and timely assistance to victims of chemical
weapons attacks, including attacks by terrorists. And I am proud of the
modest, yet extremely significant, effort we put into our international
cooperation programmes, which, I firmly believe, are critical to the
struggle against the proliferation of chemical weapons. I have faith that
the OPCW will ultimately succeed in its mission to completely destroy the
world's chemical weapons arsenals. As I have stated before, once its
disarmament mission has been accomplished, the OPCW should become an
organisation for the promotion of chemistry for peaceful purposes in full
accordance with the spirit of the Convention.

7. Against the backdrop of these achievements, I can only see the attack
launched against me as an attack on the OPCW itself, and, in particular,
on those key principles which have been guiding my work, and which have
become the hallmark of my "management style". Indeed, the unprecedented
effort that has been put into ensuring my dismissal suggests the
intention to change much more at the OPCW than the personality of its
Director-General, or his "management style" And this would explain why my
appeals for dialogue and cooperation have been repeatedly rejected.
Contrary to the path of stonewalling and hostility which my critics have
chosen, I still believe that dialogue and cooperation offer the best way
out of any crisis, including the current one, for the benefit of the
Convention and all States Parties. Let me repeat again that, even at this
very late stage, and in spite of the many slanderous remarks that have
been made about me in the course of the last few months, I sti!
ll stand ready and willing to follow the path of dialogue and cooperation.

8. No one can disregard the fact that the OPCW works, and works well. And
it has the respect and support of the vast majority of its 145 States
Parties. The OPCW has become too strong to be destroyed from the outside.
This may explain the current attempt to implode it from within, together
with its underlying principles of fairness and non-discrimination. The
culture of non-discrimination and equal treatment that I have fought hard
to establish in the Secretariat is now under attack. That culture is
being challenged by one of silent and unquestioning obedience to one or a
few major contributors. If this "new culture" is to prevail, then those
members of staff who act with integrity and are committed to fairness
will have to be the first to go starting with the Director-General.

9. Those of you who have been closely following the work of the OPCW
certainly realise what it is about my management style that appears to be
causing discomfort in some quarters. I could have been just a figurehead,
as some Member States wanted. Instead I have chosen, as the Convention
requires, to take my responsibilities seriously, amongst other things by
being actively involved in the everyday work of the Organisation. I
refused to defer to those individuals who some Member States want to be
in charge.

10. Ironically enough, because I have stood in the way of decisions that
would have established a double standard in the Organisation, I am now
accused of being biased. What is bias for some, is in reality my
commitment to equal treatment for all. I insist that the scope of access
for our inspectors should be the same in all countries. I also insist
that States Parties cannot pick and choose those areas which inspectors
may or may not verify. I insist that the verification effort, in full
accordance with the Convention, should be aimed at inspectable
facilities, rather than at certain countries. I insist on measures that
will ensure that OPCW inspectors verify those weapons and equipment which
the OPCW must verify, rather than merely those which might be volunteered
by a State Party for verification. In other words, I trust, but I also
verify, everywhere, in full accordance with the Convention. I do
criticise attempts to water down the verification regime. I do criticise
the!
continuing attempts of a small number of States Parties to stonewall
long-awaited solutions to critical issues out of perceived national
preferences. And I am now facing this current ongoing ordeal because I
should not, perhaps, have drawn the attention of other Member States to
these matters, as the Convention requires.

11. What else about my management style is not liked that might require
changing? Let us examine the list of my "ill-conceived initiatives"

12. I am blamed for seeking Iraq's membership of the CWC, even though
this effort is in full accordance with the decisions of the UN Security
Council, and with the mandate issued to me by all of you, to ensure the
Convention's universality WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Does dissatisfaction with my
actions mean that the universality of the Convention should include some
countries, but not others, not Iraq, for example?

13. I am blamed for seeking to establish, in full accordance with Article
X of the Convention, a credible system to protect States Parties from an
attack, including a terrorist attack, with chemical weapons. Should as
many as two thirds of Member States remain defenceless against such a
threat, while the ability of a small number of other States to protect
themselves and their allies remains robust?

14. I am blamed for holding out the OPCW's hand to the international
community in its fight against terrorism, simply because the OPCW has
unique expertise in chemical weapons to offer in this regard. Is that a
crime? Or is it a compassionate and rational offer, on the basis of my
assessment of the very real contribution which the OPCW, in close
consultation with other international organisations, will have to make in
the post September 11th context?

15. I am now reproached for fully funding in 2001 one single
international cooperation programme which amounted to just 0.4 percent of
the OPCW budget for that year, yet which meant a great deal to the many
developing countries. This programme represents the vital link between
disarmament and development that has been recognised and endorsed by the
United Nations. Do Member States seek to further reduce the international
cooperation and assistance programmes at the OPCW, which at present
account for a meagre 6% of its budget?

16. Finally, I am blamed for wishing to keep all States Parties informed
of progress in the destruction of Russia's chemical weapons, and for
suggesting that Russia's utilisation of international assistance be
scrutinised by the international community. If those are my ill-conceived
initiatives, then I plead guilty as charged.

17. I believe that any abandonment of such sound policies will have
extremely serious consequences for the Organisation and for you, the
Member States. This is why I insisted that my fate should be decided by
all of you, the States Parties, and not by one, or a few major
contributors which, in supporting the US draft decision, appear to share
the US perception of my "errors of judgement".
Mr Chairman,

18. I will be frank a major blow is being struck against the OPCW. And
the perpetrators would have preferred it to take place behind closed
doors. They were absolutely confident that they could move any piece on
the global chessboard ad libitum, without consultation or explanation to
the rest of the world and, in particular, to the rest of the
Organisation's membership. This is why, in flagrant violation of the
letter, not to mention the spirit, of the Chemical Weapons Convention,
the Brazilian Government was unilaterally approached with the demand that
I resign and be reassigned. Much later, I was approached unilaterally
with ultimatums to step down. And the campaign did not stop, even when a
clear majority of the 41 members of the Executive Council declined to
support the US no-confidence motion requesting me to stand down.

19. As I wrote to your Foreign Ministers, there is a more important and
fundamental point to consider. Much more than the person of the Director-
General and, please, forget Jose Bustani now or even the OPCW itself, is
at stake here. No Director-General, of any international organisation in
history, has ever been dismissed during his or her term of office.
Moreover, no Director-General should be dismissed without due process,
without any evidence of malfeasance being produced by the accuser, and
without, at the very least, an open discussion and an independent
investigation of the allegations. Those of you who have been following
developments at the OPCW know that I have committed no crime. You know
that the so-called allegations against me are trumped up charges. You
know that there is no mismanagement of the OPCW's budget, and that every
cent has been spent on activities that were properly budgeted for. The
latest report by the External Auditor on the 2001 financial year is!
the clearest possible indication of this. It will be formally issued in
the next few days, but has already given us a perfectly clean bill of
health, once again, for 2001. You know that my offer of a full and
independent inquiry into my performance as the Director-General was
rejected because such an inquiry would simply expose the allegations as
absolutely unfounded, and confirm that there has never been any
wrongdoing. The US draft decision, in fact, establishes a precedent
whereby the Director-General or Secretary-General of any international
organisation can be removed from office at any time during his or her
tenure, simply because one Member State, with or without other major
contributors doesn't like his or her "management style" or has "lost
confidence" in him or her, whatever this might mean. And to establish
such a precedent within an organisation such as the OPCW, which is not in
the public eye of the international community as are some of its cousins,
is easy. T!
his is what this Conference is about. These are the choices you face.

20. Now let me say a few words to those who are concerned about the
OPCW's survival, should one very important Member State not pay its
budgetary contribution to the Organisation. I fundamentally disagree with
those who may think that it is better to surrender the OPCW to that
Member State, than to maintain a truly multilateral OPCW at minimal
additional cost. I will never agree that the facade of multilateralism is
more important than its substance. This would not be a compromise; it
would be capitulation. Why? I will explain. This Member State's
contribution to this year's OPCW budget is 12 million euros, six million
of which have already been paid. Is six million euros too high a price to
pay for ensuring the independence and effectiveness of the Organisation?
Is six million euros (or even 10 or 12 million euros, should other like-
minded Member States also refuse to pay their dues) too high a price to
pay to avoid ousting the sitting head of an international organisation,!
something never yet attempted in international law? Is the OPCW's
independence this cheap?

21. Now, let me say a few words about the immediate future. Those who
believe that, if I leave, the Organisation will be flooded with money,
are sadly mistaken. The OPCW has already suffered three years of
underbudgeting. As a result, in 2003, just to keep up with the
significant increase in the verification workload determined by
yourselves, we will have to recruit 47 staff. To pay for this, the 2003
budget will have to be increased by more than 20 percent. This increase
is simply non-negotiable. In full knowledge of this, major contributors
have already made it clear that they will not agree to more than a 10
percent increase in 2003, which is not enough even to pay the salaries of
existing staff. As a consequence, next year, regardless of the identity
of the Director-General, you will see a shrinking, not an expanding,
OPCW, and an unavoidable reduction in its staff. And this will be the
next step towards the Organisation痴 demise, because funding is being
determine!
d by political agendas, and, in a few capitals at least, the OPCW seems
to be a very low priority.

22. Yes, there is too much at stake here for the OPCW, for other
international organisations, and for the international community. It is
time to rise to the challenge. It is time to set priorities as they are
perceived by all of you, and not just by a few so-called "major players".
This is why I refused to resign under pressure from a small handful of
Member States. I did so in order to give you all the opportunity to make
your choice to determine what future, if any, multilateral organisations
have in this increasingly dangerous, complex, and unstable world.

23. You may be surprised to hear that, had I resigned and agreed to walk
away, then my executioners would have granted me a "signified" departure,
and that my accomplishments over five years of stewardship would even
have been applauded. However, let me tell you: I do not need a hero's
departure. But if I do go something that is now in the hands of all of
you it will be with honour. I will have been faithful to the principles
of integrity by which I have tried to live my professional and personal
lives' principles which are shared by my family, my foreign service and
my country's foreign policy. Please understand that, in refusing to
resign, I chose the most arduous of the two paths. One that brought
threats, risks, stress, and insecurity, but which I chose to follow.
First of all, because that is the call of my conscience. Secondly,
because the bulk of my 36 years in the Foreign Service have been devoted
to the elaboration and strengthening of multilateral instruments, with!
out which, I firmly believe, peace and harmony among nations will not be
achieved. I therefore refuse to resign, NOT because I want to cling to my
position; but because, in not resigning, I will be preserving the right
of each one of you of even the smallest Member State amongst you to
publicly state your position on this very serious issue and to
conscientiously take responsibility for your decision. I consider it my
duty to give you all, and not only the most powerful amongst you, the
right to oust me.

24. Although this unprecedented, ruthless and arbitrary procedure is
taking place away from the public limelight, beneath the low skies of the
subdued city of The Hague, the decisions to be taken here over the next
few days will leave an indelible mark on the history of international
relations. I hope that all of you, the Member States, will confront this
historic challenge in full awareness of the implications of your
decision. The choices that you make during this session of the Conference
will determine whether genuine multilateralism will survive, or whether
it will be replaced by unilateralism in a multilateral disguise.

25. Excellencies, the responsibility for this decision rests with you.

Thank you.