Thanks for posting a story which, unsurprisingly, has a far lower media profile than it deserves. The decision to scupper an agreement that had near universal acceptance is in no small part the result of lobbying by the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, who want to protect their secrets. Such lobbying dovetailed with the broader view that the U.S. should never submit to another authority, as seen in it's rejection of the International Criminal Court, treaties on small arms, land mines, nuclear proliferation, CO2 emmisions, etc, etc.

However flawed the verification protocol of the Bioweapons treaty, it represented a serious attempt at international co-operation over an issue which surely must be at the heart of any genuine efforts to enhance global security.

The fact that the U.S/U.K bomb Iraq on a weekly basis for adopting the same policy as the U.S., i.e. refusing to allow inspection of its labs and factories, passes without comment in the "liberal" press.

Other pertinent examples of media servility to power include the decision to allow nuclear fuel reprocessing to commence at Sellafield and the announcement that 200 security jobs are to be cut at Manchester airport. At a time when civil liberties are being eroded "for security purposes" examples of policies which clearly decrease security (and increase profits) barely merit a mention