The Non-Proliferation Treatys (NPT) Review Conference has once again brought to the fore the differing perspectives on the Treaty, its Articles dealing with non-proliferation as well as nuclear disarmament, and the duality of approach adopted by states like the US on the overall issue of proliferation and disarmament. This time around no one has exposed the farce of the US position on these issues except the Iranian leadership. President Ahmedinejad once again, before the UN, reiterated his countrys position deploring the possession of nuclear weapons - which he decried was not a source of pride. He also reminded the comity of nations that the US had threatened to use nuclear weapons against other countries including his. Of course, he could also have reminded the world that the US is the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons and that too against a country which did not possess them and which was on the brink of surrendering in World War II. In addition, the US is also hell-bent on penalising Iran for its civil low-grade uranium enrichment programme despite the fact that the NPT specifically allows for this - while it actually aids and abets Israels nuclear weapons development. Another bizarre twist on this issue has been the new European interpretation of the NPT according to which the NPT does not automatically allow states parties to the Treaty the unfettered right to develop their peaceful nuclear energy programmes - the rather straightforward language of the Treaty notwithstanding In fact, the Treaty not only allows member states this right it also makes it incumbent upon the international community to ensure that they get support for the development of this aspect of nuclear power. This is not to say that Iran is not developing its defence capability by updating its weapon systems. However, developing missile systems and acquiring conventional weapons does not contravene any of Irans international treaty obligations. With the US obsessed only with nuclear weapons in Muslim hands, the field of global and regional arms build ups in the conventional field has been left totally untended in terms of limitations through international treaties And given how Iran is being threatened by the US and Israel, it is certainly in the correctness of things that it ensure a secure defence. Be that as it may, it has been evident for some time now that the NPT needs to be totally revamped beginning with two major adjustments: First, another Additional Protocol to allow Pakistan and India to join as nuclear weapon states, since the US is so keen to get universal adherence to the NPT; and, second, making Article VI compulsory by removing the word in good faith, which allows the five recognised nuclear weapon states to evade substantive movement towards nuclear disarmament and make simple declaratory gestures or sign bilateral treaties on arms reduction which leave enough of a nuclear arsenal still operational in the signatories hands. As the Pentagon has just given out, the US has 5,113 nuclear warheads in stockpile So where is the commitment to nuclear disarmament and Article VI of the NPT that Obama talked about in his campaign? In other words the inbuilt discrimination within the NPT needs to be removed to as much an extent as possible, even though it cannot totally be removed given how the non-nuclear signatories have signed away their right to acquire nuclear weapons. Also, if the US is truly committed to the NPT, it needs to reaffirm its own adherence to the non-proliferation articles of the Treaty. A beginning in this direction can be made by cancelling the nuclear treaty with India. For Pakistan, the issue of nuclear arms control and disarmament is critical because it is under pressure to accept the US draft of the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty which would leave it at a permanent disadvantage in terms of its nuclear arsenal, especially vis--vis India - thereby undermining the long-term credibility of its nuclear deterrence. Yet this is what the US is desperately seeking, through hazy promises and hard pressure. Pakistan must not be taken in by half-baked US lures and vague promises to perhaps get some sensitive technology acquisition exemptions from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The reality is that as with other promises (ROZs) and even commitments (CSF), the US cannot be relied upon. Also, in the case of the NSG there is no need of the US promise because this Group has already made exceptions in the case of India that precedences have been set. The same is the case now with the IAEA, which made exceptions in its standardised safeguards agreement for non-NPT states; and Pakistan should demand the India-style safeguards for its new civil plants since all our civilian plants are under IAEA safeguards. All in all, in the nuclear context, we do not need the US or its civilian nuclear support. Let us continue to go on the path we are already treading. At the same time, it is time to become more active on the nuclear arms control front, including on the FMCT. Here we can build support from key countries like Iran and China both of whom have their own reservations on the FMCT and the US non-proliferation agenda. And a first step in this regard is to stop the US from making the UN Security Council central on non-proliferation issues, especially technical issues. The US has already politicised and polarised the nuclear debate to the detriment of global security. It is time to alter the dynamics not only of the nuclear debate but also the institutional structures of this debate. Iran has made a beginning and Pakistan can add to it if its ruling elite can get over its US obsession and fear.