A monthlong conference aimed at curtailing the spread of nuclear weapons ended in failure Friday after being scuttled by arguments among the United States, Iran and Egypt.
Representatives of more than 150 nations convened at U.N. headquarters to seek ways to stop more countries from developing nuclear weapons, prevent terrorists from acquiring them, and get a renewed commitment from atomic powers — especially the United States — to significantly reduce their stockpiles.
A number of diplomats put much of the blame for the deadlock on the United States.
Washington's position has changed since the last conference in 2000, during the Clinton administration. The U.S. has refused to reaffirm the 13 steps toward nuclear disarmament it agreed to in 2000, or allow discussion of Israel's nuclear status.
Critics pointed out that during the monthlong conference, the White House asked Congress to fund research on a nuclear "bunker-buster" bomb that could destroy buried weapons stockpiles — a move contrary to the treaty's intentions.
"If governments simply ignore or discard commitments whenever they prove inconvenient, we will never be able to build an edifice of international cooperation and confidence in the security realm," the head of Canada's delegation, Ambassador Paul Meyer, said in a speech to the conference.
These guys make me feel like I'm in bizarro world.
Don't they realize that you can't demand that others obey treaties when you keep BREAKING them? DUH.
Don't they realize that you can't demand that others disarm while you keep increasing your own stockpiles? DUH.
This is so bloody obvious that it shouldn't even have to be SAID. You lead by EXAMPLE. You can't demand that other play by different rules than YOU play by. Most of us learned this when we were SEVEN. But the concept seems to completely befuddle the White House. Maybe Bush is USED to playing by different rules than everyone else. He's done it his whole life.
Do they ACTUALLY not get this, or are they just pretending not to in order to further an agenda?
Are they TRYING to increase world hostilities? Because they couldn't have gone about it more surely if they were.
I mean, think about it: what if you were in charge of a small third-world country, and you were trying to develop nuclear weapons? And the US said to you, "You can't have those!" What's the first thing you'd say?
"Why not? YOU do." Obviously.
So why do people who get paid for these things seem completely taken by surprise by this?