On Friday 14,700 signatures were handed in to Downing Street, part of 5 million signatures worldwide calling for an end to nuclear weapons. The same day the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference ended in New York with no consensus on how to disarm nuclear weapons(i).
Only a total lack of political will to disarm could have delivered such a flagrantly hypocritical performance at this conference. The US and UK negotiators completely ignored the 5 million signatures collected worldwide, including many from Gloucestershire, who called for an end to nuclear weapons (ii). Indeed Britain played a key role in facilitating the conference breakdown.Green delegates from the conference in New York reported that Britain was urging other countries to accept an unacceptable US position. No country will stomach being bullied by the US on nuclear non-proliferation, when at the same time the US is expanding their nuclear weapons research and development budget. The US undermined the fundamental prerequisite of non-proliferation - the goal of disarmament - by failing to implement even 1 of the 13 steps towards disarmament that they agreed to at the 2000 NPT review conference.Jenny Jones, Green London Assembly Member who was also the Mayor of London's representative at the conference, commented : "The NPT is based on cooperation. US hypocrisy and intransigence has sabotaged the trust-based nature of the non-proliferation regime at exactly the time when it is most needed. Britain's credibility, that played such a positive role in reaching agreement at the last Review Conference, now lies in tatters because of its willingness to assist the US in sabotaging the conference."UK hypocrisyIt is extremely hypocritical and dangerous for Britain to retain nuclear weapons, plan to reopen the THORP reprocessing plant, and expand our nuclear power programme, whilst our negotiators are trying to persuade Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions. The Government must claw back some credibilty by scrapping the Mutual Defence Agreement made with the US, drop any plans to replace the nuclear Trident, and refuse to expand our own nuclear energy programme.The NPT Treaty is essentially a deal: non-nuclear states agree not to try to acquire nuclear weapons, and in return, existing nuclear states agree to begin a process of disarmament. When you look at the way our government and the US attach importance to their nuclear weapons, how can we expect other countries not to harbour their own nuclear ambitions? It is time Britain honoured that deal and respected the vast majority of people who want an end to these weapons.Notes:(i) The NPT calls for governments with nuclear weapons to neither use, threaten to use nor to develop nuclear weapons, and to take immediate steps for their abolition; and the governments of all countries to take action for the conclusion of an international treaty for the abolition of nuclear weapons.Useful links for further information:Gloucestershire Green party news release before recent election:For CND’s coverage of the NPT:Link to the Petition text:UN NPT official website:(ii) On Friday 27th May at 10.30 a.m. a petition organised by CND and Abolition 2000 (a coalition of many groups including the Green party), will be presented at 10 Downing Street. The petitions were handed in by Bruce Kent, Vice President of CND, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Vice Chair of CND, Claire Poyner of Abolition 2000 and Caroline Gilbert of Christian CND. Millions of signatures on the same petition were also handed in during the first week of the NPT Conference in New York by Hiroshi Taka of the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, on behalf of Abolition 2000 the global abolition network.
The month-long 2005 Review Conference on the  (NPT) was concluded in May this year. 

It was generally considered disappointing. The  representative, Mr Labbe, stated that the outcome ''could only be described as a failure''.

The point of view of some state representatives was that the meeting failed because of possible violations of the first pillar of the treaty (non-proliferation), both because of ''grave challenges to security and to the non-proliferation regime posed by Iran's and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's non-compliance with their non-proliferation and safeguards obligations'', and the de facto proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-weapons states under , in which , , , the , and  host nuclear weapons and may, in principle, participate in decisions on using those weapons and participate in the delivery of the weapons to their targets.

However, the Iranian representative, Javad Zarif, countered by stating that the ''three pillars of the Treaty'' (non-proliferation, disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear technology) ''were intertwined and needed to be followed without diminishing the significance and effectiveness of any one pillar against the others'', in reference to the failure of the nuclear weapons states to progress in disarmament. Article VI of the NPT states that
:Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. 
He claimed that the United States had adopted a Nuclear Posture Review, incorporating the breach of the obligations on ''irreversibility'', ''diminished role of nuclear weapons'' and ''lowering the operational status of nuclear weapons'' by stressing the essential role of nuclear weapons as an effective tool for achieving security ends and foreign policy objectives; developing new nuclear weapon systems, and constructing new facilities for producing nuclear weapons; resuming efforts to develop and deploy tactical nuclear weapons, despite the commitment to reverse the process and reduce them; and targeting non-nuclear weapon States parties to the Treaty and planning to attack those States.  

The  representative, Rastam Mohd Isa, summarised the point of view of the states in the  (NAM), claiming that they had maintained that the three pillars, nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear technology ''should be approached in a balanced manner'' and that the Treaty should be fully and non-selectively implemented. He also asserted the ''indispensable need'' to preserve the decisions and resolutions of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference,  which were positions, on which the NAM had consistently insisted on since the NPT's entry into force in 1970.

The  representative, Anatoliy Scherba, judged that the case for non-proliferation rested on the primary objective of the NPT to eliminate all nuclear weapons and, hence, the central importance of article VI and felt that it required from those who did not possess, not to acquire, and for those who possessed, to eliminate.