• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Article

Failure in New York

The 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference was a disaster. It was a major missed opportunity for the United States to advance either the agenda of the Bush administration or the broader agenda against the spread of nuclear weapons. It was demoralizing for almost all of the top nonproliferation officials from around the world who had gathered for this unique conclave. (Read More)

Link Copied
By Joseph Cirincione
Published on Jun 7, 2005
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

The analysis below is adapted from a longer interview with Joseph Cirincione by Bernard Gwertzman for the Council on Foreign Relations. The entire interview, including discussion of negotiations with North Korea and Iran, is available at the Council web site, www.cfr.org.

The 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference was a disaster. It was a major missed opportunity for the United States to advance either the agenda of the Bush administration or the broader agenda against the spread of nuclear weapons. It was demoralizing for almost all of the top nonproliferation officials from around the world who had gathered for this unique conclave.

The conference did little to improve the image of the United States with many of the countries around the world and set it back in some instances. Specifically, the United States went into the conference with two agenda items. One, to defend the United States against any new calls to speed up its nuclear disarmament, and, two, to try to focus attention on the failure of Iran and North Korea to comply with their treaty obligations. The first objective trumped the second.

While many of the countries shared the U.S. concerns over Iran and North Korea, they had an equal concern that the nuclear-weapons states were not moving to eliminate their nuclear weapons and thus making it much more difficult to convince other countries not to try to get such weapons for themselves. The United States did succeed in blocking any substantive discussion of the disarmament issues, but in so doing it ruined any substantive advances in the nonproliferation agenda. In some ways, the United States was in an unholy alliance with Iran, which was busy at its end of the conference stopping any substantive discussion of the Iranian nuclear program.

These two countries, with the help of Egypt, whose performance at this conference was inexplicably counterproductive, succeeded in putting a lot of sticks in the spokes of the conference wheel. It never really got going. As a result, we have missed this once-every-five-year opportunity to not only reaffirm the importance of a nonproliferation regime, but adapt it and advance it to the current crises we face.

One example illustrates the self-defeating U.S. performance. The United States had several solid proposals that it presented at the NPT conference--as did other countries. In particular, the United States presented a comprehensive proposal on how to make it much more difficult for countries to withdraw from the treaty. The proposal could not get any traction, however, because the United States was blocking discussion of the agenda items of key concern to other nations. These nations included most of our close allies, such as Australia and Canada, as well as Great Britain and France--the two nuclear nations closest to the United States. They were all willing to commit to mutual steps on the part of the nuclear-weapon states to accelerate their disarmament and on the part of the other states to toughen up compliance with the nonproliferation regime. Because the United States was not willing to compromise at all, because it went in with a basic attitude of "You're either with us or against us,'' because it felt that in the end it was better for the conference to crash and burn than for the United States to honor its disarmament obligations, none of the U.S. agenda was able to advance. The conference ended up as almost a completely wasted 30 days in New York.

About the Author

Joseph Cirincione

Former Senior Associate, Director for NonProliferation

    Recent Work

  • Report
    Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security<br>With 2007 Report Card on Progress
      • +2

      George Perkovich, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Joseph Cirincione, …

  • Article
    The End of Neoconservatism

      Joseph Cirincione

Joseph Cirincione
Former Senior Associate, Director for NonProliferation
Joseph Cirincione
United StatesIranSouth KoreaCaucasusRussiaMilitaryNuclear Energy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • A shadow man holds a shadow drone against a blue sky with clouds.
    Article
    The New Revolution in Military Affairs

    How Ukraine is driving doctrinal change in modern warfare.

      • Andriy Zagorodnyuk

      Andriy Zagorodnyuk

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?

    Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Shipping port at dawn from above
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The U.S. Export-Import Bank Was Built for a Different Era. Here's How to Fix It.

    Five problems—and solutions—to make it actually work as a tool of great power competition.

      • Afren Akhter

      Afreen Akhter

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle East

    The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Man speaking into two mics
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Three Scenarios for the Gulf States After the Iran War

    One is hopeful. One is realistic. One is cautionary.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber, Sam Worby

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.