[dragonwriter]

> Does that seem accurate? It reads as if the lack of ratification is basically an old political statement at this point and there's no real policy there they object to now?

The policy that is objected to, inasmuch as the US political opponents of the treaty object to policy, is that the US has to answer, or even report, to any one on what it does. It doesn't matter that the substantive requirements are little different than what the US does, what matters is the idea that anything but what the US chooses to do at the time matters.