U.S. quietly drops historic arms-control deals from brochure on disarmament

[Guest guest]

U.S. quietly drops historic arms-control deals from brochure on disarmament

02:37 PM EDT May 25 CHARLES J. HANLEY

 

 

 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - With a few keystrokes, an official U.S. brochure on

disarmament eliminated some historic arms-control deals and showed once again

that what is left out of a report can be as telling as what's put in.

 

In this case, the publication's " rewriting of history, " as one critic put it,

also illustrates in black and white a dispute that has helped bog down the

188-country conference reviewing the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

 

The month-long conference entered its final three days on Wednesday with

uncertain prospects for producing any major agreements to tighten controls on

the spread of atomic arms, or to speed nuclear disarmament.

 

The brochure, produced by the U.S. State Department and distributed to hundreds

of delegates, lists milestones in arms control since the 1980s, while touting

reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

 

But the timeline omits a pivotal agreement, the 1996 treaty to ban nuclear

tests, a pact negotiated by the Clinton administration and ratified by 121

countries but now rejected by President George W. Bush.

 

Further along, the brochure skips over the year 2000 entirely, a snub of the

treaty review conference that year, when the United States and other

nuclear-weapons states committed to " 13 practical steps " to achieve nuclear

disarmament - including activating the test-ban treaty, negotiating a pact to

ban production of bomb material and " unequivocally undertaking " to totally

eliminate their arsenals.

 

Bush administration officials now suggest the 2000 commitments are outdated.

Other delegations reject that, however, demanding a reaffirmation of the goals

in a final document at the current conference.

 

Few expect that, and they cite the blank spots in the brochure as another piece

of evidence.

 

" Official disdain for these agreements seems to have turned into denial that

they existed, " said Joseph Cirincione, an arms-control specialist with the

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who accused the State Department of

rewriting history.

 

" Does this mean that, because we have a change of administration, we are not

accountable to other countries? " asked another disarmament advocate, Jonathan

Granoff of the Global Security Institute.

 

Asked why the 1996 treaty and the 2000 U.S. commitments - along with similar

commitments in 1995 - didn't make the 40-entry list of " progress in arms

control, " U.S. delegation spokesman Richard Grenell said simply: " We highlighted

certain items, and it wasn't an exhaustive list. "

 

By contrast, an official UN chronology has several entries on the test ban, and

prominently notes the 1995 and 2000 agreements.

 

Under the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, reviewed every five years for

ways to strengthen implementation, countries without nuclear weapons commit to

not pursuing them in exchange for a pledge by five weapons states - the United

States, Russia, Britain, France and China - to move toward disarmament. The

non-weapons states, meanwhile, are guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear

technology.

 

The United States has sought to have the conference focus on the Iranian and

North Korean nuclear programs.

 

In Geneva on Wednesday, European diplomats resume negotiations with Tehran in an

effort to get the Iranians to roll back their uranium-enrichment program, which

can produce both fuel for nuclear energy and material for bombs. The Iranians

cite the treaty guarantee on peaceful technology in justifying the program, but

Washington contends they have plans to make weapons.

 

North Korea was the first " defector " from the treaty, having announced its

withdrawal in 2003 and now claiming to have built nuclear weapons. This was done

without consequences under the treaty, and many at the conference would like to

make it harder to exit the nuclear pact, and to threaten sanctions against those

who do.

 

Many non-weapons states, however, want an additional focus on the nuclear

powers, complaining they are moving too slowly on their disarmament obligations.

They cite in particular Bush administration talk of " modernizing " the U.S.

nuclear arsenal and rejection of the test-ban treaty.

 

Washington still adheres to a unilateral moratorium on testing, but treaty

advocates say a formal outlawing of testing is needed to stop development of new

nuclear arms.

 

Visiting the troubled conference on Tuesday, a U.S. negotiator of the test-ban

treaty told reporters the 1996 pact is a " litmus test. "

 

" If countries that promised never to have nuclear weapons now see weapons states

holding open the option to test, some of them think, 'Why should we give up

nuclear weapons?' " said former ambassador Thomas Graham.

 

 

 

© The Canadian Press, 2005

 

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050525/w052522.html

 

 

 

http://www.blueaction.org

A politician is a man who will double cross that bridge when he comes to it

http://babyseals.care2.com/