They came, they talked, and they went - that's how one can essentially sum up the proceedings of the month-long seventh quinquennial review conference of the 35-year old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that was held last month in New York. Though the chairman of the conference declared that "very little has been accomplished," what became clear is how little relevance the NPT holds for the international community today. This is paradoxical given the fact that the threat of nuclear proliferation has never been higher.

The last review conference held in 2000 at least agreed on 'thirteen steps' to prevent any further spread of nuclear weapons and to hold the nuclear weapon states to their commitment to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. The 2005 review conference had no such luck. There were only disagreements to show in the end and even the short-term interests of the states were too divergent to allow for meaningful debate.

The US wanted to focus the attention of the conference on loopholes in the NPT, which it accused states such as Iran and North Korea of exploiting. But, Iran in a pre-emptive move blamed the US and Europe of trying to keep an exclusive hold over technological development and vowed to defy these western double standards. It declared that it will pursue all legal avenues to seek nuclear technology, including enrichment, though it was careful to specify that its pursuit is exclusively meant for peaceful purposes. On the other hand, the US made it clear that the impasse between the West and Iran can only be resolved when Iran ceases its enrichment and reprocessing efforts, and dismantles its facilities related to these activities.

There was a broader divide between the nuclear weapon states (NWS) and the rest of the world that dogged the negotiations at the conference from the very beginning. Non-nuclear weapon states insisted that the NWS should focus on radically reducing their nuclear armaments, a commitment that they had made in 2000. Concerns were expressed about the Bush administration's plans to modernize the US nuclear force and its nuclear posture that relies less on deterrence and more on pre-emption. The US countered that it is complying with the requirement of the NPT that nuclear states move towards disarmament by pointing to the reductions in its nuclear stockpile under an agreement with Russia in 2002. Though this failed to assuage the non-nuclear states, the US was successful in blocking any mention of its commitment towards disarmament in the conference's final report.

A number of new ideas were proposed to strengthen the NPT but none of them could gain consensus. There was a proposal for limiting access to dual-use nuclear technology as well as strengthening the inspection of nuclear facilities. There was also a proposal to make withdrawing from the NPT more difficult and penalty-ridden. Both these proposals were in response to Iran and North Korea's nuclear activities, but they could not gain enough acceptance that might have led to their adoption.

In the end, the self-interests of various states were too strong to prevent any consensus from emerging in these negotiations. Iran objected to its being singled out as being of proliferation concern, arguing that its nuclear activities are in total conformity with its commitments to the NPT. Egypt blocked action on making withdrawal from the NPT tougher, wanting to keep the option to pull out for itself since Israel has nuclear weapons. The US objected to any mention of the disarmament commitments it had made at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences along with other nuclear powers. These differences made sure in the end that nothing was achieved after a month of negotiations.

The NPT was always a flawed document, and various countries, including India, had pointed to these flaws over the years. Recent global developments make it clear that unless a thorough review of the NPT is undertaken, it would soon become a paper tiger, if it has not become one already. Given the fact of September 11, 2001, the danger of nuclear terrorism, and the prospect of other Irans and North Koreas being only a screwdriver's turn away from nuclear weapons, it's time for the international community to find a bolder nuclear arrangement than the NPT of 1968. It would indeed be a grave tragedy if the divisions in the international community preclude it from reaching a consensus on tackling the growing menace of nuclear proliferation.