The 188-nation meeting, reviewing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, produced weeks of divisive debate over issues ranging from Iran's uranium centrifuges, to Israel's nuclear capabilities, to U.S. weapons plans. It yielded no consensus recommendations, however, for concrete steps to rein in atomic arms.

The disagreements even kept the conference president, Brazil's Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, from issuing a summary statement endorsing nonproliferation principles.

Dispirited diplomats and disarmament campaigners lamented a lack of political will.

“We have witnessed intransigence from more than one state on pressing issues of the day,” Canadian Ambassador Paul Meyer told conference delegates.

“It's a tragic lost opportunity,” British arms-control advocate Ian Davis told reporters.

The conference approved the key sections of the final report Friday morning but deferred overall adoption until later in the day, when it would approve a financial section.

The members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty convene only once every five years to assess the workings of the 1970 treaty and find ways to make it work better – political commitments that give a boost to nonproliferation initiatives.

Under the nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged not to develop them, and five with the weapons – the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China – undertook to eliminate their arsenals eventually. The states without weapons, meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear technology.

Citing that guarantee, Iran has obtained uranium-enrichment centrifuges, which can produce both fuel for nuclear power plants and material for bombs. Washington contends that Tehran plans to build weapons, but the Iranians say they are interested only in peaceful energy.

Delegations had promoted ideas, for example, for limiting access to such dual-use technology with bomb-making potential, along with proposals to strengthen inspection of nuclear facilities, pressure nuclear-weapons states to shrink arsenals more quickly, and take other steps to reduce the global role of the ultimate weapons.

Some also supported plans to make withdrawing from the treaty more difficult and penalty-laden. That was a response to North Korea's announced withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and its declaration that it has built nuclear bombs – all done without consequence under the nonproliferation pact.

But the three conference committees were caught in a crossfire of interests, including U.S.-Iranian antagonisms, and all failed to reach consensus on action programs to send to the full conference.

Iran objected to proposed language singling it out as a proliferation concern. Egypt blocked action on toughening treaty withdrawal, wanting the option to pull out as long as ex-enemy Israel, not a treaty member, has a nuclear arsenal. The United States, for its part, objected to any reference in a final document to disarmament commitments it and other weapons states made at the 1995 and 2000 conferences.

Those commitments included, for example, activation of the nuclear test-ban treaty and negotiation of a verifiable treaty banning production of bomb material – both steps now opposed by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Critics accused Washington of reneging on those commitments, undermining the balance of nonproliferation and disarmament obligations in the treaty, perhaps making some feel less bound by their pledge to forswear nuclear bombs.

“I wish the United States had been more flexible here, and not tried to question or downgrade the validity with respect to the 1995 and 2000 commitments,” said Thomas Graham, a former lead U.S. arms negotiator.

Critics also said Bush administration talk of developing new nuclear weapons violates at least the spirit of the nonproliferation treaty.

A spokesman indicated the U.S. delegation blocked the disarmament language because it felt the conference was paying too little attention to Iran and Washington's other proliferation concerns.

“We're happy to talk about their issues,” Richard Grenell said, “but there needs to be a recognition we have to talk about our issues and their issues – not exclusively their issues.”

Comments

Fatal Peril Written by bigt on 2005-05-28 22:39:27 This news piece is very interesting when taken in the context of the McNamara piece that Peter D posted a little while ago. Unfortunately none of the promise of moving forward that Robert McNamara suggested necessary was grasped at the conference, and if anything the dangers remain all the more imminent. Iran appears on the brink of nuclear capacity -- an obvious defensive manuever against possible American aggression (or pre-emptiveness). One hopes that somehow a less bleak future may be found.    tyler

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 2.0!