2006 United States Global Treaty.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by SouthAmerica, May 19, 2006.

  1. .

    May 19, 2006

    SouthAmerica: The United States presented yesterday a draft global treaty to ban production of nuclear bomb-making fissile material, although it would leave existing stockpiles untouched.

    The title of the new United States global treaty is self-explanatory:

    “The 2006 Treaty for Suckers and Other Fools.”



    **********



    REUTERS – May 19, 2006
    “US presents draft treaty to ban bomb-making nuclear material”
    Stephanie Nebehay

    GENEVA — The US yesterday presented a draft global treaty to ban production of nuclear bomb-making fissile material, although it would leave existing stockpiles untouched.

    Stephen Rademaker, acting assistant secretary in the US bureau of international security and nonproliferation, outlined the proposal in a speech to the Conference on Disarmament, which is backed by the United Nations.

    The conference has been deadlocked for years over the issue but the search for a breakthrough has intensified because of mounting international concern over Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programmes.

    “The treaty text we are putting forward contains the essential provisions that would comprise a successful, legally binding fissile material cut off treaty,” Rade-maker told the Geneva forum.

    “Our draft treaty has a straightforward scope. Once in force it would ban the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons,” he said.

    Production of fissile material for nonexplosive purposes, such as for naval propulsion, would not be prohibited.

    The 65-member state forum is holding a special session to try to kickstart negotiations to prevent production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium.

    It is unclear whether yesterday’s proposal will be enough to start substantive negotiations and end wrangling over the scope of the talks.

    Negotiations, the next step in global nuclear disarmament, began briefly in 1998.

    However, they quickly broke down due to arguments including the scope of a future treaty and whether it should cover existing stocks and have a verification regime to check against cheating.

    Developing countries want the talks widened to include total nuclear disarmament. China and others have also been pressing for parallel negotiations to prevent an arms race in outer space, something which the US has been resisting.

    Rademaker accused Iran of failing to co-operate with an investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency into its nuclear programme. He also bluntly warned North Korea against transferring or testing nuclear weapons.


    .
     
  2. .

    May 20, 2006

    SouthAmerica: On May 19, 2006 The New York Times published an article “US Proposes New Nuclear Pact” – and the article said the following:

    “…at the 65 nation Conference on Disarmament that it should aim to approve a treaty by September under which those who sign would agree not to make any additional nuclear material for weapons.

    …The proposal contains no verification measure and stockpiles of nuclear material would not be affected, allowing existing nuclear powers to build weapons with their reserves.

    …The proposal would go into force with the approval of the five permanent members of the Security Council – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.”

    I wonder if there would be many countries signing such a treaty – maybe I am underestimating how many fools there are around the world.

    I can see some little countries being bribed to sign the treaty – countries too small to even think about developing nuclear weapons. For these countries it does not matter any way.

    The permanent members of the Security Council at the Uited Nations believe that they are the masters and that they have a superior type of sovereignty than the other countries of the world and this give you a clue what a mean in that regard, quoting the article: “The proposal would go into force with the approval of the five permanent members of the Security Council – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States”

    The new treaty is designed to give a military advantage to these 5 countries at the expense of the emerging countries of the future. They want to freeze military advantage based on the past.

    In my opinion only suckers, fools and irrelevant countries would sign such a treaty.

    Many countries around the world are smart than that, and besides the nuclear weapons issue should be decided by each individual country and its population, and it is not the business of these countries that think they have some special right on that matter over the rights of other countries.

    Brazil should refuse to sign such a treaty – and also Argentina and so on….


    .
     
  3. saxon

    saxon

    My favorite line on this whole nuclear non-proliferation issue (vis. the US) is from Rep. Ed Markey (MA):

    "You can't preach temperance from a bar stool."

    says it all, i think.
     
  4. Ricter

    Ricter

    Of course it's hypocritical self-interest. But I don't think the primary purpose of the treaty is to discourage other nations from building bombs, but rather to get everyone else "on board" so that when we bomb those other nations, taking out their nuclear sites, we have a lot less worldwide hostility coming our way.

    To me this is the kind of move nations with intelligent politicians at the helm would make. Must have been drafted during the Clinton years. :D
     
  5.  
  6. jem

    jem

    We can SA is more conerned about brazils status as a third world backwater than he is about international security.